ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

IT Procurement

Charlie Elphicke: What recent progress he has made on bringing forward proposals on Government IT procurement; and if he will make a statement.

Francis Maude: Soon after the coalition Government came to office, we introduced strict controls on ICT spend that saved £300 million in the year to March 2011 alone. We have opened up procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises, we are moving towards open standards and interoperability, and we are examining some of the incredibly expensive and burdensome ICT contracts that we inherited from the previous Government.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the Minister tell us more about how open source, getting computers to talk to each other through common standards, and smarter procurement can help to save billions of pounds, secure better computers, and break up the IT cartel that was fostered under the previous Government?

Francis Maude: It is becoming increasingly clear that the Government have opportunities to handle their IT and increase their digital offering in transactional public services very differently from that which we inherited. It is also becoming increasingly clear that it will be possible for both the quality of those public services and public interaction to be massively improved, at a fraction of the cost incurred by the previous Government.

Bernard Jenkin: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to read the latest report on IT procurement by the Select Committee on Public Administration, which includes the Government’s response to our original report? We commend the Minister for that response, but there is further progress to be made. In particular, how will the Minister tackle the cartel-like behaviour of the large prime contractors?

Francis Maude: The reports produced by my hon. Friend’s Committee are my regular reading, and I enjoy them enormously. I commend the Committee’s work, especially its conclusions on Government ICT. I also commend the work of the Public Accounts Committee, which has focused on the subject. I think that we are making progress, but I entirely accept my hon. Friend’s point: there is much, much more to be done. The previous Government left the taxpayer in hock to an oligopoly of ICT suppliers, and we intend to move on from that.

Social Action Fund

Nicky Morgan: What criteria his Department uses to determine allocations made under the social action fund.

Nick Hurd: The social action fund exists to scale up projects that have proved their ability to inspire people to take social action. We recently announced the first investments for the fund, which are worth £9.4 million and have generated a further £9 million in match funding. We believe that those combined investments will generate more than 200,000 volunteering opportunities.

Nicky Morgan: A registered charity in my constituency, Fourtwelve Ministries, which runs the Carpenter’s Arms residential rehabilitation centre and a food parcel handout service, was recently turned down for funding by the Social Investment Business, which administers the social action fund. One of the reasons given was that it was part of a Christian charity. Can the Minister assure me that the Government fully recognise the role played by Christian groups in delivering social action projects?

Nick Hurd: Yes, I can, but I should clarify one point. The charity was not turned down for the social action fund; it was turned down for another fund.
	We all know from our constituencies that many churches and faith groups are very active in generating opportunities for people to become involved and give time to help others, and the social action fund is open to bids from faith groups that make social action possible. In the first round we invested in the Cathedral Archer Project, a Christian group in Sheffield that is enabling homeless people to volunteer to help other homeless people.

Cathy Jamieson: A recent report by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations showed that, according to the Government’s own figures, charities face cuts of over £900 million. Does the Minister agree that the £20 million managed by the social action fund is a drop in the ocean in comparison with what charities need?

Nick Hurd: Let me make two points. First, the sector would have faced cuts under any Administration, as the leader of the Labour party has made clear. Secondly, the £20 million social action fund exists to do something very specific. Its purpose is to scale up successful, proven projects in order to inspire social action.

Big Society

Peter Bone: How many big society projects were under way in the most recent period for which figures are available.

Oliver Letwin: Our big society agenda involves putting power into the hands of individuals and communities, and it is emphatically not a programme driven from the centre of Government. I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that there is not an army of bureaucrats going around counting big society projects; that would entirely defeat the purpose.

Peter Bone: I am grateful to the Minister for telling me that he has no idea—I appreciate that.
	Big society projects have been one of the many successes of this Conservative-led Government. In my constituency we have the Hope project, led by the superb Simon Trundle, which is transforming one of the most deprived areas in the constituency. However, it is experiencing problems as local funding is cut, and it may even have to be closed. How can the big society initiative help it to obtain more funds?

Oliver Letwin: I am aware of the Hope project, which is to be greatly commended, and I am happy to be able to say to my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), the Minister for civil society, will meet him to discuss this. I have a terrible feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) might even succeed, because I did some research and discovered that he managed to get community first funding for two of the wards in his constituency. I wish him luck in this endeavour, too.

Lindsay Roy: Patrick Butler said in The Guardian recently:
	“For many in the charity world, the Big Society…has become a toxic sign of Government hypocrisy, broken promises and ineptitude”.
	What are the Government doing to change that?

Oliver Letwin: I hope the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will help me to do so, because distinguished members of his party totally back the big society, including the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), who tells him and his colleagues:
	“We should be for the Big Society.”
	I therefore hope the hon. Gentleman will join me in putting across the idea that we should welcome the giving back of power to communities and individuals to change their own lives for the better.

Mark Williams: One of the ways the big society will succeed is through the dissemination of successful projects, for which the big society awards were intended to be one of the vehicles. What progress has been made with the awards?

Oliver Letwin: I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the big society awards are alive and well and happening, with successive tranches of people coming in to get them. The Prime Minister is hugely devoted to this. It is important to recognise what communities and community groups are doing the length and breadth of the land.

Jonathan Ashworth: The Minister is a keen follower of my website, so he will know that I support initiatives to build social capital in communities. When I visit voluntary groups, I am very struck by the extent to which they have benefited from the future jobs fund. From a big society point of view, was it not a mistake, therefore, to abolish that fund?

Oliver Letwin: I am indeed an avid follower of the hon. Gentleman’s website, and a most interesting document it is, too. The fact is that, alas, the future jobs fund offered only a very temporary fix. By contrast, we are trying to create a framework within which the voluntary community sector has long-term prospects that it can build on through achievement and by providing the taxpayer with value for money.

Efficiency Savings

Tom Greatrex: What efficiency savings the Efficiency and Reform Group has identified across central Government.

Francis Maude: We have made huge efficiency savings in the spending we inherited from the previous Government. In the 10 months to March 2011 we delivered £3.75 billion in savings by reducing waste. For the first time, the savings were verified by the Public Accounts Committee and by the National Audit Office in its report last week, but this is only the start and further significant savings will derive from the Efficiency and Reform Group’s programme of long-term, sustainable reform.

Tom Greatrex: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am a keen follower of his Department’s website and I noted that its jobs section last week advertised eight jobs with a salary of more than £100,000 before bonuses, perks and who knows what tax arrangements. Will the Minister explain how that fits with his freeze on non-essential and non-front line jobs in the public sector, and at a time when public sector workers are under increasing pressure?

Francis Maude: It is completely consistent with that, because we need particular skills to drive out the waste we inherited. Particularly, there is a need for commercial and IT skills. While those skills exist in Government, we do not have enough of them. Every single one of those external recruitments by the Cabinet Office will have been approved by me personally, and I make absolutely no apology at all for approving them. Where those skills are needed and a rigorous search has shown that they are not available within Government, we will recruit from outside and we will pay people properly for work that is essential.

Jon Trickett: Is it not a fact that the Minister’s Efficiency and Reform Group will achieve no savings at all if the most senior officials in Government are distracted into chaotic breaches of the Cabinet Office code of conduct? Will he confirm that the Cabinet Secretary has now restored efficient Government by launching an investigation into such destructive breaches
	of the code as that reported in
	The Times 
	yesterday of a senior No. 10 aide saying the Health Secretary should be “taken out and shot”?

Francis Maude: Frankly, coming from the hon. Gentleman—the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the previous Prime Minister, who operated in a No. 10 that was widely reviled as a snake pit of back-biting and anonymous briefings—that is pretty rich.

Big Society

Lilian Greenwood: What the Government’s objectives are for the big society initiative.

Jessica Morden: What the Government’s objectives are for the big society initiative.

Oliver Letwin: Our objectives are to build social capital by transferring powers to communities, opening up public services and encouraging more social action.

Lilian Greenwood: Last year, the Prime Minister included community empowerment among his three big society aims, but this year the Communities Secretary has already been forced to write to the Conservative leader of Nottingham county council following reports of disproportionate cuts to the voluntary sector. Can the Minister tell me exactly how this Tory council’s decision to cut voluntary sector funding by a huge 34% will empower communities in our county?

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has written in extremely uncompromising and tough terms to the county council in question, reminding it that there is statutory guidance, and that the proportion by which the voluntary and community sector is cut should be the same as the proportion by which the council’s own budgets are cut. I am delighted to pay tribute, unusually, to the hon. Lady’s own council, which, despite coming from a different political party from mine, has actually followed that rule, cutting both by roughly similar proportions.

Jessica Morden: The Public Administration Committee report on the big society described it as lacking clarity and leadership and ways of measuring progress. Why does the Minister think this cross-party group is so critical of the big society idea?

Oliver Letwin: As a matter of fact, the Committee’s report is an admirable work that brings out extremely clearly the value of our big society agenda and urges us to push it further and faster, and we agree with that. Actually, the evidence clearly shows that it is on the ground that people will measure success. When they see more free schools educating their children better, mutuals delivering better health care, and communities taking charge of their own neighbourhood planning and making their environment better, then we will know it is a success.

Nadhim Zahawi: The shadow spokesman on London and the Olympics said that the big society “should be Labour territory”. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the whole point of the big society is that it is not just for Labour but for everyone?

Oliver Letwin: Yes, I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend, and I should like to pray in aid the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who said that the big society is
	“something that the Labour party should instinctively understand as part of its own DNA”.
	The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), told the Labour party:
	“We shouldn’t be afraid of the Big Society; we should claim it for our own”.
	I hope this can bring the whole House together.

Andrew Percy: If my right hon. Friend wants to see the big society at work, may I suggest that he look at the snow in winter clearance initiatives of East Riding and North Lincolnshire councils? They have devolved money down to local communities, enabling them last weekend to sort out snow clearance in their own way, as they wished.

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is a classic example of what I see in my own constituency, in many other rural constituencies up and down the country and increasingly in the suburbs. People are taking charge and making sure that they get what they actually need delivered locally, by people who understand the local circumstances, and in many cases much more cheaply than was previously possible from the centre.

Gareth Thomas: Given what is really happening, the objectives for the big society would appear to be huge funding and job cuts across the third sector, charities walking away from the Work programme and health service mutuals not getting health service contracts. Given the lack of influence that Cabinet Office Ministers clearly have across the rest of Whitehall, is the Cabinet Office not now merely the place where the emperor’s new clothes get spun?

Oliver Letwin: Unfortunately, what the hon. Gentleman fails to reckon with is that not only this Government but any Government currently trying to run the United Kingdom would be faced with the need to clear up the fiscal mess that he and his colleagues left this country in, and that certainly entails cuts. We are very clear about that, and as matter of fact his own leader is now beginning to be clearer about that—although we are still not clear how clear he is. The fact is, therefore, that the voluntary and community sector does suffer some reduction in funding, but we are determined to create vast new opportunities for that sector, so it can compete to provide public services effectively and for the sake of the taxpayer.

Consultancy

Chi Onwurah: How much his Department spent on consultancy in the last year for which figures are available.

Francis Maude: During 2010-11, the Cabinet Office spent just over £9 million on consultancy. The figure is down from £27.5 million in 2009-10, the last year of the previous Government. That is a reduction of more than two thirds and we anticipate further reductions in the current financial year. Across central Government, expenditure was reduced from £1.234 billion in 2009-10 to £361 million in the last financial year—that is a 71% reduction.

Chi Onwurah: In August 2010, the most recent month for which figures are available, the Cabinet Office spent almost £120,000 on consultants for advice on judicial reviews. Does the Minister agree that spending hundreds of thousands of pounds defending this Government’s mistakes is not the best use of taxpayers’ money?

Francis Maude: The Government are obliged to protect what they do in the interests of the taxpayer. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that spending on consultants was spiralling completely out of control under the previous Government. That was providing very bad value for the taxpayer and it was very demoralising for mainstream civil servants, who felt that they were undervalued by the previous Government, whose default setting when anything difficult came up was to hire consultants. We will put our faith in the work that civil servants do. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. A large number of very noisy private conversations are taking place in the Chamber, even as I speak. Some involve very senior Members who ought to know better.

Public Procurement

Ann McKechin: What assessment he has made of the effects of changes to public procurement on the ability of small and medium-sized enterprises to secure contracts.

Luciana Berger: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of new suppliers to Government working groups in making it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to bid for Government contracts.

Francis Maude: We want 25% of the value of Government contracts to be awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises, and we have made significant progress towards that. This has so far led to a more than doubling in the amount of direct spend awarded to SMEs in the first half of the current year.

Ann McKechin: The Minister will be aware that his own commercial representatives of SMEs have said that it will take up to two years before SMEs stop being excluded from Government contracts. Does he agree that that is utterly unacceptable? What is he going to do to make better use of EU exemptions that protect local economies?

Francis Maude: I fully accept that it will take a little time to get things fully sorted out following the mess left after 13 years of the hon. Lady’s Government, so rather
	than chiding us for the progress that we are making why does she not congratulate us on our progress and start apologising for the mess her Government left behind?

Luciana Berger: Further to the Minister’s answer, the leader of one of the Government’s own working groups, Mark Taylor, who is the chief executive officer of Sirius, has said:
	“There are SMEs being taken out of procurement, not put into it.”
	He said that that is “simply not acceptable.” Are not Government policies, as Mr Taylor points out, making it more difficult for SMEs to take part in Government procurement projects, rather than easier?

Francis Maude: No, that is the reverse of the truth. The arrangements we inherited made it incredibly difficult for SMEs to bid, because the procurement processes were so bureaucratic, so clunky and so expensive, both for the taxpayer and for bidders, that many SMEs and voluntary and community sector organisations were, in effect, excluded. We are addressing that. There is more to do, but I would be grateful for some support from the hon. Lady’s side, particularly in encouraging Labour-led local authorities.

Heather Wheeler: My constituent, Mr Isham, who runs a business in Willington, is also finding it difficult to break through the barriers to obtaining Government contracts. May I encourage the Minister to come to South Derbyshire for a question and answer session with local business people, so that they can learn at first hand from the master how to apply?

Francis Maude: I would obviously be delighted to meet my hon. Friend’s constituents, but I would urge them to look at the Contracts Finder website, where, for the first time, Government and public sector contracts are available for scrutiny. If they find that procurement is still being done in the old-fashioned, outmoded way that we inherited from the Labour Government, they should phone our helpline and we will get on the case, as we have done in many cases already, and put improvements in place.

Gordon Birtwistle: Manufacturing companies in my constituency are slowly dragging this country out of the mire in which it was left by the previous Government. Will the Minister please advise my manufacturing companies how, other than by looking at the website, they can find out about getting on the list to provide the national Government with products?

Francis Maude: We inherited some very rigid arrangements that militated against UK-based suppliers and at the same time provided very bad value for taxpayers. We are making reforms that make it easier for local businesses, particularly manufacturing businesses, to compete effectively, but I will happily consider the issue raised by my hon. Friend.

Michael Dugher: The Government promised that 25% of Government contracts would be awarded to small and medium-sized enterprises, yet figures on the Minister’s departmental website show that the percentage of procurement spend with SMEs at the Cabinet Office has fallen from just under 11% to
	7%, a decline replicated across Whitehall. At a time when net lending to SMEs is falling and the number of companies going under is increasing, why are things getting worse, not better, for small businesses on his watch?

Francis Maude: It is simply not the case that things are getting worse. The value of contracts being given to SMEs is rising and rising markedly from the very low base that we inherited. The other issue that we have had to deal with is the fact that the quality of information left by the previous Government was deplorable.

Topical Questions

Julie Elliott: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Francis Maude: My responsibilities are for the public sector, the Efficiency and Reform Group, civil service issues, industrial relations strategy in the public sector, Government transparency, civil contingencies, civil society and cyber-security.

Julie Elliott: Will the Minister explain how the Government’s action in allowing the chief executive of the Student Loans Company not to pay tax or national insurance on his £182,000 salary is in line with his own Government’s report, “Tackling Debt Owed to Central Government”? Does the Minister agree that this Government have one rule for the rich and another for everyone else?

Francis Maude: The answer is that that is not consistent and it is being dealt with.

Stephen Barclay: In reply to a question I tabled last July, my right hon. Friend emphasised the importance of reforming the civil service appraisal system. Will he update the House on what changes have been made?

Francis Maude: We have already put in place new arrangements for the senior civil service and they will be rolled out for the whole civil service at the delegated grades. It is really important that appraisal identifies the very best performers, rewarding them with promotion and proper pay, and pays serious attention to those who underperform, who cause massive demoralisation to the hard-working majority of dedicated civil servants.

Graeme Morrice: Given the fact that the report of the Public Administration Committee, “A Recipe For Rip-Offs”, has recommended that owing to allegations of anti-competitiveness and collusive behaviour by some large IT suppliers, the Government should establish an independent and external investigation into those claims, will the Minister agree to implement the recommendations and set up an investigation into the oligopoly of large suppliers?

Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman is completely correct that an oligopoly of IT suppliers has, to far too great an extent, dominated Government ICT contracts. We seek to change that by having smaller contracts and much
	quicker and better procurement processes, but we have a legacy of huge contracts with that oligopoly of suppliers and are looking at how we can deal with that.

Duncan Hames: Europe’s most energy efficient data centre was recently opened by Ark Continuity near Corsham on the edge of my constituency, providing resilient top-tier security infrastructure. Given the Minister’s interest in improving public sector information, communications and technology, can I interest him in joining me on a site visit to see that world-leading technology for himself?

Francis Maude: I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency and that installation. There are now ways of providing much better ICT at a much lower cost and in a much greener way. We are exploring all of them and I would be delighted to share our thinking with my hon. Friend—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise. We can scarcely hear the Minister’s answers, which is unfair on the Minister and unfair on the House.

Geraint Davies: Sixty per cent. of Welsh Government public procurement contracts are awarded to SMEs, half of which are in Wales. In England the figure is less than 10%. Given that SMEs invest more in local jobs, pay more tax and create more growth, what is the Minister doing to ensure that SMEs get business in England, instead of the money being siphoned off abroad?

Francis Maude: We are radically reforming procurement to cut the cost to businesses. Bidding for public sector contracts has been far too expensive, both for the taxpayer and for bidders, and it is entirely right to say that too many SMEs have simply been frozen out of the process. We are determined to open that up and to enable more SMEs, which will tend to be UK-based, to bid successfully.

Amber Rudd: I welcome the Minister’s wise decision to accept a bid from the Hastings Trust and other charities to the social action fund to build community volunteers and to promote the big society in Hastings. May I urge him to visit us in Hastings, to see the good work that is being done?

Francis Maude: The allure of a visit to my hon. Friend’s constituency is hard to resist. I can undertake that I or my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), the Minister for civil society, will fulfil that engagement.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Andy Slaughter: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 8 February.

David Cameron: Before I list my engagements, I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Her Majesty the Queen—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]—in this historic week marking the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne. Her Majesty’s 60 years of remarkable leadership and dedicated public service are an inspiration to us all and something that the whole country and the whole Commonwealth can be immensely proud of. Members will have the opportunity to pay individual tributes during debate on the humble address on 7 March.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Andy Slaughter: I am sure the whole House, and not least myself, will wish to join the Prime Minister in his warm tribute to Her Majesty. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
	In March last year the Prime Minister said:
	“There is no reason for there to be fewer front-line police officers.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2011; Vol. 526, c. 335.]
	Will he confirm that front-line officer numbers have been cut in 40 out of 43 police forces?

David Cameron: The proportion of officers on the front line is up, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to join me in congratulating Mayor Boris Johnson on his excellent record on crime in our capital. Total crime is down, violent crime is down on buses and tubes, 11,000 knives and guns have been taken off our streets, and there are 1,000 more officers on the streets of London at the end of his term than at the beginning. That, together with his reminder of the rule on the dangers of tweeting, is a good start to the day.

David Amess: Does my right hon. Friend share my disappointment at the overthrow yesterday of the first democratically elected President of the Maldives in a coup d’état? Given our historical links with the islands, will the Government, by way of a message, do all they can to ensure that no violence results and that the democratic institutions remain?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. This country does have strong links with the Maldives and a good relationship with President Nasheed, but we have to be clear. President Nasheed has resigned, and we have a strong interest in the well-being of several thousand British tourists and in a stable and democratic Government in the Maldives. Our high commissioner is in the capital now and meeting all the political leaders. We call on the new Government to demonstrate their respect for the rights of all political parties and their members, and to ensure that the constitution is upheld. We advise British tourists to avoid non-essential travel to Malé island, and those using Malé airport and the tourist resorts should exercise caution.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Her Majesty the Queen as we celebrate her diamond jubilee. Her dedication to the country and to public service is an inspiration and an example to us all, and we all look forward to the official celebrations later this year, which will enable us to celebrate both Her Majesty and our country.
	On the day the Prime Minister completed his NHS listening exercise, he said:
	“some of the people who worked in our NHS were sceptical of our changes. Today, we are taking people with us. It’s in this spirit of unity that we want to continue.”
	Why does he think he has failed?

David Cameron: Today, 95% of the country is covered by general practitioners who are not actually supporting our reforms; they are implementing them. Just today—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House must calm down. There is a long way to go, so let us hear the answers. There will be plenty of time. Calm.

David Cameron: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just today, 50 foundation trusts have written to the newspapers in support of our reforms and objecting to what Labour is proposing, and the signature at the top of the list, which the right hon. Gentleman might not have noticed, is that of one Anne Campbell, the former Labour MP for Cambridge. She, running her local foundation trust, supports the reforms. That is what happens: Labour MPs leave this House and start implementing coalition policy.

Edward Miliband: Even the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that nonsense he just came out with. Last Friday the Royal College of General Practitioners said that his health Bill would
	“cause irreparable damage to patient care and jeopardise the NHS.”
	[Interruption.] The Health Secretary is shouting from a sedentary position—from some distance away, I notice. It is nice to see him here. The Prime Minister says that he wants the voice of doctors to be heard in the NHS. Why does he not listen to them?

David Cameron: It is always good to get a lecture on happy families from the right hon. Gentleman. I care passionately about our NHS, not least because of what it has done for my family and because of the amazing service I have received. I want to see that excellent service implemented for everyone, and that means two things: we have to put more money into the NHS, which we are doing, but we also have to reform the NHS. He used to be in favour of reform. Let me read him something. Who said:
	“to safeguard the NHS in tougher fiscal times, we need sustained reform.”?
	That was in the Labour manifesto at the last election. Because the NHS is important, we are committed to £12.5 billion in this Parliament, yet his health spokesman, who is sitting right there, said that it would be “irresponsible” to spend more money on the NHS. The Opposition are not in favour of the money. They are not in favour of the reform. They are just a bunch of opportunists.

Edward Miliband: Isn’t this interesting? The Prime Minister says that this is all about reform, but the Tory Reform Group has come out against these proposals. It comes to something when even the Tories do not trust the Tories on the NHS. Let us hear what Clare Gerada, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”]So when the people Government Members want to put at the heart of the NHS say
	things about their Bill, they just groan. That says it all about those on the Government Benches. Clare Gerada said:
	“This bill is a burden. It makes no sense, it is incoherent… It won’t deal with the big issues… and it will also result in a health service that certainly will never match the health service that we… had 12 months ago.”
	Which part of that does the right hon. Gentleman not understand?

David Cameron: Let us look at what has happened to the NHS over the past 18 months—[ Interruption. ] Yes, let us look at the figures: 100,000 more patients treated every month; 4,000 extra doctors since the election; the number of clinical staff up; the level of hospital-acquired infections down; the number of people who are in mixed-sex wards down by 94%. That is what is happening, because there is a combination of money going in and reform.
	Now, we know what happens if we do not put in the money and do not undertake the reform, because there is one part of the NHS which is run by Labour, and that is in Wales. Let us have a look at what is happening to the NHS in Wales. Labour has cut the money, and one third of people are waiting longer than 18 weeks. That is what is happening in Labour’s NHS, and if we did not put the money in and did not have the reform, it would happen right here, too.

Edward Miliband: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is getting so agitated, because he thought that the NHS was his way to modernise the Conservative party, and I am afraid that it is coming apart. I will tell him why: it is because the promises he made before the election are coming back to haunt him. We all remember the promise of no more top-down reorganisation. Now he says that he knows better than the doctors, better than the nurses, better than the midwives and better than the patients associations—people who day in, day out rely on and devote their lives to the health service. This is a matter of trust in the Prime Minister. Can he honestly look people in the health service in the eye and say that he has kept his promise of no more top-down reorganisation?

David Cameron: What we are doing is cutting the bureaucracy in the NHS. We are taking out £4.5 billion of bureaucracy which will be ploughed into patient care. If you don’t support the reform, you won’t see that money go into operations, doctors, nurses, hospitals, health care assistants. That is what is actually happening in the NHS, but there is one group of people I will not listen to, and that is the people who ran the NHS under Labour. This is what they did: £6 billion wasted on the NHS computer; £250 million spent on private sector operations that were never carried out. We still have private finance initiative agreements whereby we pay £300 every time someone changes a light bulb. That is what we got from Labour. We are putting the money in, we are putting the reform in, the number of operations is up, the waiting times are down, the NHS is improving, and that is the way it is going to stay.

Edward Miliband: I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman about our record on the NHS: the shortest waiting times in NHS history; more doctors and nurses than ever before; the highest level of patient satisfaction ever in the health service.
	But everyone will have heard a Prime Minister unable to defend the promise that he made: the promise of no more top-down reorganisation—a Prime Minister who has broken his word. The reality is this: all his attention is on this pointless, top-down reorganisation, and the front line is suffering: the number of people waiting more than 18 weeks—up, under him; A and E targets being missed; cancelled operations. Why will he not just give up, stop wasting billions and drop his Bill?

David Cameron: If the Opposition’s record was so good, why were they thrown out at the last election?
	Now, let me just—[ Interruption. ] Let me— [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I am worried about Opposition Members. They must calm themselves and do so straight away.

David Cameron: Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman of the clear test that he set for the reforms and for the Government. He said that the test was whether waiting times and waiting lists would come down. Let me now give him the figures: in-patient waiting times, down; out-patient waiting times, down; the number of people waiting more than a year, down to its lowest ever level; the number of people waiting for six months, down to its lowest ever level; and, indeed, the number of people on the waiting list—what he said was the clear test—is down. This is what it proves about the Labour leader: even when he moves the goalposts, he can’t put it in the back of the net.

Edward Miliband: The person who is moving the goalposts is the Prime Minister. The reality is that the key test that was set for the health service was the number of people waiting more than 18 weeks, and that number is up 43% since the general election. However much he twists and turns, that is the reality.
	In his heart of hearts, the Prime Minister knows that the Bill is a complete disaster. That is why his aides are saying that the Health Secretary should be taken out and shot, because they know it is a disaster. The reality about the Bill is this: the doctors know that it is bad for the NHS; the nurses know that it is bad for the NHS; and patients know that it is bad for the NHS. Every day the Prime Minister fights for the Bill, every day trust in him on the NHS ebbs away and every day it becomes clearer that the health service is not safe in his hands.

David Cameron: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that the career prospects of my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary are a lot better than his. That is what this is about. This is not a campaign to save the NHS; this is a campaign to try to save the right hon. Gentleman’s leadership. I make this prediction: the NHS will go on getting better and his prospects will go on getting worse.

Gordon Birtwistle: When the Work programme was introduced in Burnley in October 2010, 66% of people there were economically active; since then, the figure has climbed to 75%. Would the Prime Minister like to congratulate the people of Burnley—and in particular, Vedas Recruitment—for that success?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating not only the people in Burnley but the people conducting the Work programme and our welfare reforms. What we are seeing is more people becoming able to work and therefore able to enter the work force and raise not only the country’s living standards but their own, too.

Mark Hendrick: The people of Preston are furious that the Indian Government have selected a French company as their preferred bidder for the Indian air force jet contract. The Prime Minister repeatedly talks about rebalancing the British economy, but this is a major blow to manufacturing in this country. Other European leaders go to help their companies get major contracts. Why is this weak Prime Minister not doing that and why have we not got the contract with the Indian Government?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman ought to think about the fact that all European leaders are backing the Eurofighter project—it is a German project, an Italian project, a Spanish project and a British project, and that is how it should be. I am very disappointed by what has happened in India, but Eurofighter is not out of the contest and we need to re-engage as hard as we can to make sure that we get the best deal for all those workers in Britain who make Eurofighters. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is shouting from a sedentary position, but this is something that ought to unite parties in this House—getting behind our great defence producers.

Penny Mordaunt: In order that a constituent of mine could access the drugs and treatment that she was entitled to under the NHS constitution, her GP, her consultant, her specialist oncologist, the Secretary of State for Health and I had to write a total of 70 appeal letters. When will health care professionals be able to decide what treatments their patients get?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Since the introduction of the cancer drugs fund under this Government, 10,000 more people have been able to get cancer drugs, which are so essential. Let me tell the House one thing that would really damage cancer treatment in this country—it is the proposal from the Labour party to cap at 5% any private sector involvement in our hospitals. The Royal Marsden, one of the best cancer hospitals in the country, would have to cut by a quarter the services that it delivers. What a crazy, left-wing plan, which only the Leader of the Opposition could come up with.

Geraint Davies: In three months’ time, just before the Olympics, Abu Qatada, a truly dangerous man, will be roaming the streets of London with his mobile phone and internet access, thanks to the Prime Minister’s having abolished control orders and house arrest provisions. How can the Prime Minister justify putting the public’s right to life at risk to give over to the Liberal Democrats on their demands to abolish control orders? It is disgusting.

David Cameron: The situation with Abu Qatada is completely unacceptable. As I said when I went to Strasbourg to make a speech to the Council of Europe about this issue, it is not acceptable that we end up with a situation where we cannot try, detain or deport someone in our country who threatens to do us harm. That is why the Government will do everything they can, working with our Jordanian friends and allies, to make sure that he can be deported. Again, instead of the hon. Gentleman sniping about this, the whole House ought to unite to help sort this out.

Julian Lewis: As recently as last September, only a tiny handful of the 165 acute mental health adult in-patient beds in Hampshire were vacant, yet the trust concerned proposes to cut those 165 beds to 107, replacing them with something called a hospital at home, or a virtual ward. Given my belief that the statistics on which that decision is based are inconsistent and unreliable, will the Prime Minister support my call for independent experts from the Audit Commission to look at those figures before those beds are closed?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, we are putting extra resources into the NHS, but there needs to be a clear series of tests—as there is now under our plans—before any facilities are changed or closed. That is about ensuring that there is GP backing for what is proposed, and ensuring that any such changes will improve the health of the area. I will happily look at the issue that my hon. Friend raises, and ensure that the Department of Health engages on it with him.

Andrew Miller: Four police authorities, including one that I share with the Chancellor, have just started buying Hyundai cars imported from Korea. Add to that the Thameslink fiasco and that of the Olympic tickets—when will we see some leadership from the Prime Minister on public procurement in this country?

David Cameron: The most important thing in police procurement is that police forces get together and procure together to cut their costs. We have all lost count of the times spent wandering through police stations and seeing countless different types of vehicle, all costing a large amount of money. What the public want is police on the streets, not money spent on unnecessary procurement.

Andrew Stephenson: The Prime Minister will have seen this morning’s Defence Committee report on Libya. What steps is he taking to ensure that the UK will be fully able to evacuate all UK nationals from conflict zones, and reduce our reliance on civil charter aircraft?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I think that the Libya evacuation, and other potential evacuations in a dangerous and unstable world, have brought home to us the importance of having transport aircraft in the Ministry of Defence and the RAF. I can announce today that because the MOD’s finances are now better run and better managed, and because we have found savings, we will be able to
	purchase an additional C-17 for the RAF. This aircraft is becoming an absolutely brilliant workhorse for the RAF, bringing men and material into a war zone such as Afghanistan, and evacuating civilians in times of need. It is an important investment for the country, and I am glad to announce that we can make it today.

Elfyn Llwyd: May I first associate myself with the tributes to Her Majesty the Queen?
	Yesterday, the all-party independent group on stalking published its report. The Prime Minister knows of my interest in that subject, and the Government consultation concluded yesterday. Will he please meet me and a small group of members of that all-party group to discuss the urgent need for a stalking law?

David Cameron: We take this issue seriously, and I would be happy to meet with the right hon. Gentleman and discuss it. I know that he has had conversations with the Home Office. We all want to get the issue right, and if there is a need for legislative changes, there may well be opportunities in the next Session for that sort of criminal justice legislation. I will happily meet the right hon. Gentleman and talk with him about it.

David Rutley: During apprenticeship week I am proud to highlight the fact that Macclesfield college has increased its number of apprenticeships from nine to 160 over the past three years, and that the Government have increased the number of apprenticeships by 177,000 in the past year alone. Does my right hon. Friend agree that achievements such as those illustrate the importance of apprenticeships, and the commitment that is required to give them the focus, attention and recognition that they deserve?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is entirely right. One of the most important investments that we can make in the future industrial base of this country and in helping young people is in apprenticeships. The number of apprenticeships has increased by a staggering 60% over the past year, and 457,000 people are starting apprenticeships. In apprenticeship week, it is important to stress what we are doing to get over the objections that people have had in the past, and to ensure that apprenticeships are more easily taken up by small businesses through the payment of a simple fee. We must ensure that we have more higher-level apprenticeships to show that apprenticeships are every bit as good as having a university degree, and often involve a university degree. We must also cut bureaucracy by allowing big businesses to run apprenticeship schemes themselves, rather than doing it via a training provider. All those things will make a big difference.

Stephen McCabe: Why have the Government not lodged an appeal against the Abu Qatada judgment? Aren’t you being dangerously complacent, Prime Minister?

David Cameron: We are doing everything we can to get this man out of the country. The absolutely key thing is to get an agreement with Jordan about the way he will be treated, because the European Court of Human Rights has made a very clear judgment. I happen to think it is the wrong judgment, and I regret
	that judgment. This guy should have been deported years ago. Nevertheless, if we can get that agreement with Jordan, he can be on his way.

Julian Smith: Complex employment law makes small businesses nervous about hiring new staff. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need a simpler alternative for our smallest firms on dismissal rules?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. If every small business in the country hired an additional worker, that would go a long way to curing both long-term youth unemployment and total unemployment at one stroke. We have got to make it easier for businesses to take people on. One of the key considerations for businesses is how difficult it is to let someone go if it does not work out. That is why extending to two years the amount of time that someone has to work before they get access to a tribunal will make a real difference in small business employment.

Alison Seabeck: We have heard from the Prime Minister how the Italian and German Governments are out there fighting for British jobs. Will he tell us exactly how many phone conversations he had directly with the Indian Prime Minister about the Typhoon bid, and when the last conversation took place?

David Cameron: I raised this issue with the Indian Prime Minister repeatedly on my visit to India, and indeed at the G20 in Cannes, but let me remind the hon. Lady of one important fact. When I loaded up an aeroplane with British business people, including from businesses like Rolls-Royce, and took them around the Gulf to sell our defence equipment, who was it that attacked me? Who was it that put out press releases? Who is it that does not stand up for British industry, British defence companies and British jobs? It is Labour.

Steven Baker: On Monday I visited the offices of the Bucks Free Press to hear what my constituents have been saying about proposed changes to health services at Wycombe hospital. I can tell the Prime Minister that Labour’s tragic legacy in my constituency is distrust and despair. Does he agree with me that the right way to deliver local accountability in health care in our constituencies is clinical commissioning and foundation trust status?

David Cameron: I think my hon. Friend is entirely right. The whole point of the reforms is to put the power in the hands of local doctors, so that they make decisions on behalf of patients and based on what is good for health care in their local area. We may well find that the community hospitals that were repeatedly undermined by Labour will actually get a great boost, because local people and local doctors want to see them succeed. That is what our reforms are all about.

Barbara Keeley: The PIP implant saga has left 40,000 women sick with anxiety because of faulty medical products, and now they are being failed by private clinics and by an NHS that is dithering about what to do with them. In this saga we can see the future of a privatised NHS, so will
	the Prime Minister pledge to support those women in the NHS now and claim against the clinics later, and will he drop the Health and Social Care Bill so that we do not have this happening again across the NHS?

David Cameron: Let me take the hon. Lady’s question in two halves. She is entirely right about the scandal of the PIP implants. The Government have made it absolutely clear that we will offer every one of those women a free consultation and ensure that we do everything we can on the NHS to help them. It is an absolute scandal, and the private clinics that carried out those operations should feel the maximum pressure to undo the harm that they have done.
	On the issue of greater competition and choice within the NHS, I think the hon. Lady should listen to past Labour politicians who have themselves said that actually, greater choice, greater competition and the involvement of the private sector can help to raise standards in our NHS system. That is why we should support it.

Caroline Dinenage: The threat to shipbuilding jobs at Portsmouth dockyard places a question mark over not only 1,500 livelihoods at BAE Systems but 32,000 jobs in the wider regional supply chain. I know that the Prime Minister shares my concerns about that, but will he commit to do all he can to protect that site, where they have been building warships for more than 500 years?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak up for Portsmouth, for her constituents and for shipbuilding. BAE Systems has not approached the Government with any proposal to rationalise shipbuilding in the UK. As far as I am aware, no decisions have yet been taken by the company. On this Government’s commitment to the Royal Navy, we are building the new frigates, the global combat ship and the hunter-killer submarines. We have plans for replacing Trident, and plans for aircraft carriers are well under way. That is a major punch for the Royal Navy, which I strongly support.

Mary Glindon: Treasury tax raids on North sea oil and gas are putting 1,500 jobs at Offshore Group Newcastle in North Tyneside at risk. I ask the Prime Minister not to be complacent about north-east jobs, but to incentivise offshore development and guarantee tax relief on platform decommissioning in the Budget, and to meet me and others about the job situation in the north-east.

David Cameron: The hon. Lady raises an extremely important point. I saw for myself when I went to Aberdeen how vital this industry is and how much investment is taking place in the North sea. Let me remind her, however, that the reason we put up the tax on the North sea was to cut petrol duty for families up and down the country, but we will make sure—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I do not know why Members are falling about unable to contain themselves. I want to hear the Prime Minister’s answer.

David Cameron: We will make sure there is a good tax regime for the North sea, whether that is servicing jobs in England or, indeed, in Scotland.

Peter Bone: Last Wednesday, the Commons rejected the Lords attempt to wreck the Welfare Reform Bill. On seven occasions, the Commons voted. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister voted, but the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), who has responsibility for children, refused to support the Government and has spoken against the policy. On occasion, I have spoken against the Government and not supported them, but I am not a Government Minister. Why is she still a Government Minister? [ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. We want to hear the Prime Minister’s verdict on the hon. Member for Brent Central, and we will not if there is too much noise.

David Cameron: I thought my hon. Friend was going to say that he was not a Government Minister “yet”. The hon. Lady is a Government Minister and supports Government policy, as all Ministers do.

Katy Clark: Fifteen thousand young disabled people will be affected by the changes to contributory employment support allowance. The worst 10%—1,500 new claimants —will lose £4,900 a year. Is this the Government of values that the Prime Minister spoke about in May 2010?

David Cameron: The important value with respect to employment support allowance is that we are saying that there are two groups. The first group—the support group—is for people who are not able to work, who deserve to get that support over and above jobseeker’s allowance, for as long as they need it, without any element of means-testing. The second group—the work-related activity group—is for people who need help to get work but who will be able to work. That is why they are in that group. They will get tailored help and support under the Work programme to get them into work. I know the Labour party has set its face against all welfare reform, but it is making a massive mistake in doing so.

Menzies Campbell: What confidence can we have that unilateral intervention by Russia will put an end to the terrible violence in Syria?

David Cameron: I think we can have very little confidence in that. Frankly, Russia and China set themselves against Arab opinion and world opinion when they set themselves against passing what would have been a strong and good UN resolution. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was absolutely right to push for that resolution.
	What we now need—Britain will play a big part in this—is real engagement with the opposition groups both inside and outside Syria, bringing together the strongest possible international alliance through a contact group, so that we can co-ordinate our efforts with respect to getting rid of that dreadful regime. We should make sure, through the EU and other bodies, that we continue the sanctions and pressure.
	The bloodshed in Syria is absolutely appalling. The Russians have to look at their consciences and realise what they have done, but the rest of the world will keep fighting as hard as we can to give the Syrian people a chance to choose their own future.

Alun Michael: Yesterday, I heard a health expert who is visiting the UK say that the NHS remains a beacon for care and effectiveness in the world, and that it needs to be improved and perfected, not changed. Will the Prime Minister accept that advice and abandon the health Bill?

David Cameron: What needs to be abandoned is Labour’s approach to the NHS in Wales.

Alun Michael: indicated  dissent .

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but I will tell him what Labour is doing in Wales. It has cut health spending in Wales by £400 million, which is a 6.5% cut; and 27% of people in Wales wait more than six weeks for diagnostic services, whereas the figure for England is just 1%. As I said earlier, one third of people wait more than 18 weeks for an operation in Wales. That is what we get from Labour: no money, no reform, no good health service.

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Mr Martin Vickers.

Martin Vickers: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Many of my constituents are among the 337 redundancies announced by Kerry Foods, based at Europarc industrial estate, which straddles the Cleethorpes and Great Grimsby constituencies. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) and I have approached various Departments for support, which I am sure will be forthcoming. One possibility is the extension of the recently announced enterprise zone. Will the Prime Minister give some comfort to my constituents by considering the proposal sympathetically?

David Cameron: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. He is right to speak up for his constituents in this way. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is happy to consider expanding the enterprise zone and see what else we can do to help my hon. Friend’s constituents and ensure that they can get into work.

Mr Speaker: We now come to the ten-minute rule motion. As always, I appeal to hon. and right hon. Members leaving the Chamber to do so quickly and quietly so that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) can be respectfully heard by all who remain in the Chamber.

Health and Safety (Amendment)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Luciana Berger: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to give health and safety inspectors the power to apply for a court order to freeze the assets, or parts thereof, of a company under investigation following a death or serious injury at work; and for connected purposes.
	I start by declaring an interest: I am a proud member of the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians.
	Many in the House take our safety at work for granted. We are lucky enough to be in an environment where the risks that we are exposed to are limited, but thousands of people in our country are not so lucky. They do their jobs in dangerous situations every day. When we think of danger, our armed forces often spring to mind, but in a whole range of industries, such as construction, workers are placed in harm’s way—those who work with heavy machinery, large vehicles or electrics, for example. In these environments, there can be serious consequences if accidents happen. It is vital, then, that we have laws in place to ensure that every precaution is taken to keep people safe at work, and that employers who ignore their legal responsibilities are properly deterred and punished when they do wrong.
	My reason for bringing this motion before the House today is simple: a worrying number of companies are not only ignoring the laws designed to protect their employers but exploiting legal loopholes to avoid proper punishment following a death at work resulting from their malpractice. In the brief time I have today, I want to mention two companies abusing these loopholes.
	In 2007, construction worker Mark Thornton, aged 46, was killed on a building site in my constituency. A 6 tonne steel column struck him on the head and shoulders after the crane carrying it buckled and toppled over. Mark worked for Bryn Thomas Crane Hire. When the Health and Safety Executive investigated, following Mark’s death, it concluded that a
	“series of health and safety warnings and procedures were ignored. The crane was simply not capable of lifting the steel column, when it was nearly 18 metres away, without it being overloaded. If the work had been properly planned, and the crane had been properly maintained, then Mr Thornton would still be alive today.”
	In December 2010, shortly before the case came to trial, the company that Mark worked for went into administration, despite its paying out dividends of over £200,000 in each of the three financial years following Mark’s death. During the trial, the judge stated that he was unable to impose the appropriate fine of £300,000 for flouting health and safety legislation because the company was in administration. Instead, he was able only to issue a fine of just £4,500. While in administration, the company was bought out by two of its directors, and is now operating under an almost identical name. It is still run by the same people, and still using the same equipment. It is, to all intents and purposes, the same company. To date, inquires made by UCATT to the administrators about the moneys owed by Bryn Thomas and the huge dividends paid to the directors have not been adequately answered.
	As I have said, the case of Mr Thornton is sadly not an isolated one. In February 2008, Noel Corbin was just 29 when he suffered fatal head injuries after falling from a roof in the course of installing a satellite dish for his employer, Foxtel Ltd. The ladder that he was provided with was too short and he had not received adequate training for the task that he had been asked to do. In fact, the property that he was working on had previously been visited by other installers and the job designated as impossible without a specialist team. His employer knew that, yet sent him to do the job alone anyway. Again, an HSE investigation took place and, just like Bryn Thomas, Foxtel entered administration shortly before the trial. Foxtel was found guilty of breaching health and safety laws, but because it was in administration, the court was able only to impose a fine of just £1. Just like in the case of Mark Thornton, Foxtel has since been resurrected, and continues to trade under virtually the same name.
	Noel’s family were kind enough to join me in Parliament on Monday to launch this Bill. They bravely shared their tragic story and their sense of deep injustice. I can only begin to imagine how they must feel.
	Mark and Noel are just two examples of people who should be alive today but are not, and I could have named more. The HSE has numerous powers to carry out investigations and inquiries where it considers that there may have been a breach of health and safety regulations. However, those cases clearly demonstrate that its powers are limited where a company under investigation for a serious breach of health and safety law goes into liquidation. The loopholes that that has created are wrong. They are exploited by negligent employers unwilling to take responsibility for the tragedies that they have caused, and they deny the victims’ families and friends the justice that they deserve. We have a responsibility, to the families and friends who have lost loved ones, to close those loopholes.
	Giving health and safety inspectors the power to freeze a company’s assets when it is under investigation following an accident at work would help to prevent the sort of manoeuvrings illustrated in those cases. If the assets of Bryn Thomas Crane Hire Ltd had been frozen, it would not have been possible to run the company down by paying huge dividends to the directors while it was under investigation. Such powers would also send a clear signal to other employers that they cannot avoid being punished for breaking the law. Freezing orders are already used widely in cases of suspected fraud or drug crimes. They prevent the disposal or removal of assets before a judgment has been made. Those rules could apply equally to health and safety law.
	There may be circumstances where it is not appropriate or desirable for the HSE to freeze all the assets of a company—if that would lead to its being unable to continue trading or to a loss of jobs, for example. In those cases, the Bill would allow the HSE to freeze part of a company’s assets, allowing it to continue trading, but preventing it from avoiding the correct level of punishment if found guilty.
	All too often, our health and safety laws are maligned; they are attacked as pointless and obstructive, and characterised as regulations gone mad. When incorrectly applied, there could be some truth to that, but no one could disagree that Noel Corbin deserved the proper
	sized ladder or that the crane that killed Mark Thornton should have been properly maintained and fit for the task.
	The Government have launched a red tape challenge, which they say is an attempt to cut unnecessary regulations for business. As part of that they are examining health and safety laws. I urge Ministers not to remove regulations that protect our workers. In the construction industry, strong health and safety laws save lives. If our laws were stronger, more lives might be saved. Last year, 50 people died on construction sites—that is 50 people too many.
	Employers who wilfully avoid protecting the lives of the people who work for them must never be able to walk away without punishment or to continue trading and endangering others. That is why I have brought this Bill forward. In doing so, I hope that the Government will look at the issue and be persuaded that the time has come to put this modest but vital measure into law.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Ordered ,
	That Luciana Berger, Steve Rotheram, Joan Walley, Huw Irranca-Davies, John Cryer, Angela Smith, Mr David Hamilton, Natascha Engel, Kevin Brennan, Julie Elliott, Mr Stephen Hepburn and Jim Sheridan present the Bill.
	Luciana Berger accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April 2012, and to be printed (Bill 305).

Police

Nick Herbert: I beg to move,
	That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2012-13 (HC 1797), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
	This Government inherited the largest budget deficit in our peacetime history. The deficit needs to be reduced, which means less spending across the public sector, and the police service must play its part. The reductions we are making in police funding are not through choice; they are a direct response to the situation in which the country was left. On 8 December, I laid before this House a written ministerial statement, which set out the Government’s proposed allocations of grants to police authorities and, from this November, police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. Following that, the Government held a public consultation on the proposed allocations, to which we received 21 responses.

Mark Hendrick: rose —

Nick Herbert: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman—at a very early stage.

Mark Hendrick: Will the Minister tell us why the Lancashire constabulary is losing 500 police officers?

Nick Herbert: I will come to all those issues in the course of my remarks. Naturally, I intend to address all these issues.

John Healey: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Herbert: Let me make a little more progress, and I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman later.
	Following careful consideration of all those responses, I have decided that force level allocations will remain as announced in my written ministerial statement of 8 December. Each police force in England and Wales will face an equal percentage reduction in core Government funding in 2012-13. I believe that that is the most transparent, straightforward and equitable means of apportioning the funding reductions. It is important to note that the allocations were set out last year and have remained the same.

Alun Michael: The Minister is talking about the level of cuts and maintaining the figures as originally set out. Does he accept that although it might not be his choice, it is the Government’s choice that the reductions are front-ended, and therefore place an additional burden which is more difficult for police forces to meet?

Nick Herbert: The profile of the reductions for police forces was set by the spending review. There are larger reductions in the first and second years than in the third and fourth years, and that reflects the overall need for the Government to get on top of the deficit and build credibility in this area. The position and allocations I have announced remain the same, so there are no surprises for police forces, which have been working on that basis since the spending review was announced.

John Healey: The Minister talks about choices, but will he talk about consequences? South Yorkshire has been forced to cut more than 100 police officers since the election and will have to cut another 300. Will he rethink these Government funding cuts for the police instead of stripping us in south Yorkshire of the police we need?

Nick Herbert: I will come to the issue of police numbers, although the previous Home Secretary in the Government whom the right hon. Gentleman supported said just before the election that he could not guarantee the number of police officers. One of the points I will be making today is that the Opposition are committed to reductions in spending that mean they too would produce a situation in which police forces were losing officers—the question is how forces adapt to that. Anyway, I do not think we should just play the straightforward numbers game.

Andrew Percy: Does the Minister share my confusion about the fact that when police numbers in my police force in Humberside were cut by 137 in 2009 under the Labour Government, not a single Labour politician, local council or local MP criticised those cuts? Instead, they defended them, saying, “It’s not about numbers; it’s about what you do with your police officers.” Does my right hon. Friend think that is a bit weird?

Nick Herbert: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is certainly true that we do not hear much of that from the Labour party now. Some 27 police forces were reducing police numbers at the time of the last election, but that is not frequently admitted by the Opposition.
	One-off funding will additionally be provided to the Mayor’s office for policing and crime in 2012 from outside the police spending review settlement. That payment will help to maintain the operational capabilities of the Metropolitan police while they are policing the Olympics, the Paralympics, WorldPride and Her Majesty’s diamond jubilee celebrations. It will help to maintain resilience during this unique period and, crucially, it comes on top of the police spending review settlement, which means that no police force will see its funding reduced as a result.

Richard Burden: If I heard the Minister correctly a few moments ago, he said that the cuts, while regrettable, were equitable. May I ask him to address an issue that we from the west midlands and some cities have been saying for some time? For forces that are more dependent on grant, the cuts are much greater and deeper than for other forces. Why is it that the West Midlands force is suffering a reduction of 7.3% while Surrey has an increase of 3.8%? Is that his definition of us all being in it together?

Nick Herbert: There is an equal share in the reduction in central Government funding, and the decision that confronted the Government, which we have discussed in the House before, was whether to adjust that reduction for the contribution that is made by the local taxpayer. I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to make this point as a west midlands Member of Parliament, but had we followed his advice and given a smaller reduction
	to his force because it raises less money from the local taxpayer, we would have penalised the forces that raise more from the local taxpayer. Why should forces that have over the years increased the amount of local funding they receive be penalised more and why should their taxpayers be penalised more? Furthermore, police forces were expecting an even share of the reduction. For all those reasons, we thought that the proper and fairest course was to give an even reduction across the forces. The hon. Gentleman might not like that explanation, but it is a credible and proper response to the situation in which we found ourselves.
	I appreciate that there are differences of opinion about the use of damping and I understand why some forces wish to see it phased out while others welcome its retention. I know that many police forces and authorities are keen to have more clarity about the damping arrangements for the last two years of this spending review period, and I want to reassure the House that I intend to consider this issue very carefully and will take into account the wide range of views before making a final decision later this year.

Mark Tami: The Minister has repeatedly said that the front line does not have to be affected, but does he accept that the evidence is clear that it is being affected and that front-line officers are going each day?

Nick Herbert: The hon. Gentleman is making the mistake that I think is the mistake of the Labour party of equating the quality of the front-line service purely with numbers. I shall address precisely this issue later, and if he feels that I have not done that I will be happy for him to intervene on me again.
	On capital funding, I have carefully considered the consultation responses and have decided to top-slice the Home Office police capital allocation to support the establishment of the National Police Air Service. That service will give all forces access to helicopter support 24 hours a day, 365 days year, in contrast with the current system in which some force’s helicopters are grounded for days at a time while being repaired. It will mean that 97% of the population of England and Wales will remain within 20 minutes’ flying time, and it will save the police service £15 million a year when fully operational.
	The plan for the National Police Air Service has been led by Chief Constable Alex Marshall and has the full support of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the police service’s operational leaders and the vast majority of police authorities. The funding proposal I have set out is the right way to ensure that this key national service is established on a sound basis. Each force will face an equal percentage reduction in the previously indicated level of capital grant; this is the most transparent and equitable means of providing for the capital requirements of what will be a national service. All forces will benefit from the savings.

Keith Vaz: I welcome what the Minister has done on the helicopter issue, especially in using the powers to mandate South Yorkshire, but what about unexpected events? Last Saturday, the English Defence League marched through the middle of Leicester at a cost to the police authority of £800,000. Where
	does it get that money from at a time when budgets are very tight? It cannot prevent people from marching unless there are reasons to do so, but that puts it under huge pressure.

Nick Herbert: First, I note the right hon. Gentleman’s support for the National Police Air Service, which is important given his position as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. This move is a significant step forward and shows that police forces can collaborate to improve the quality of service and reduce cost. On events that occur in police force areas and incur particular costs, there are established procedures under which police forces can apply to the Home Office for special grant. Forces and authorities are aware of the criteria for such grants and we will always consider such applications very carefully.

Tony Lloyd: In Greater Manchester, we were genuinely grateful for the moneys that flowed from the Home Office as a consequence of the riots. However, will the Minister address this point about the front line? During the riots, the Home Secretary ordered that all leave be cancelled, and the thin blue line was very stretched. Can the Minister honestly say that with the current cutbacks, if there were large-scale disorder such as that last August, which nobody wants to see, the police service could cope, even with the cuts that are still coming?

Nick Herbert: I am absolutely confident that the police service could cope in those circumstances. In such situations, police forces will always rely on additional support from other services and will take special measures, such as the cancellation of leave, to maximise the resources available to them. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that the inspectorate of constabulary report on this issue did not suggest that the reduction in police spending and numbers was going to leave police forces more vulnerable in that regard. It talked about the importance of more effective and rapid deployment, and those are the issues on which we should focus.

Dave Watts: The Minister said that he did not think there was any need to lose front-line police officers, and quoted the inspectorate in that context. Has the inspectorate not said that up to 10,000 police on the beat will be lost because of his cuts?

Nick Herbert: I shall deal with precisely what the inspectorate said in a minute.
	Funding for counter-terrorism policing has been prioritised in the police funding settlement to ensure that the police have the necessary resources to respond to the demands posed by the continuing terrorist threat. We have allocated £564 million to counter-terrorism for 2012-13, and that follows a considerable increase over previous years. Forces will receive their allocations shortly. Delivering a safe and secure Olympic and Paralympic games is a priority for the Government, and preparations remain on track. As we indicated last year, the Government are confident that the Olympic policing and wider security programme can be delivered in full for £475 million, although £600 million remains available if required.
	We have set aside sufficient funding for the election this November of police and crime commissioners, who will ensure that the police become fully accountable and responsive to the demands of their local areas. That funding is additional money, which will not come from the police settlement. [Interruption.] As hon. Members seek to interrupt me from a sedentary position, let me observe that it is very gratifying to note the number of putative police and crime commissioners on the Opposition Benches. Indeed, more and more Labour Members of Parliament are jumping from the sinking ship every day in the hope of seeking refuge in elected local office.

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Nick Herbert: The right hon. Lady will soon be on her own.

Yvette Cooper: Given that the Minister is so isolated as he sits there on the Government Front Bench, I think that he may want to reconsider that remark. Will he tell the House how many constables could have been paid for with the money that is to be spent on police and crime commissioners?

Nick Herbert: I have said on a number of occasions that we do not expect the running costs of police and crime commissioners to be more than those of police authorities. The only additional cost will be the cost of elections, which will represent 0.1% of annual police spend. Having got itself into the position of opposing this democratic reform over the last 18 months, the Labour party is now putting up candidates, and some would-be candidates are on the Benches behind the right hon. Lady. I think that she needs to catch up: she cannot go on criticising this policy while at the same time fielding candidates.
	I believe that the challenge of maintaining and improving policing as budgets fall is manageable, provided that forces do not treat this as “business as usual”. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has set out how forces can save over £1 billion a year if those that spend more than others reduce their costs just to the average. The savings identified were in such areas as legal services, estates—buildings, maintenance and services—criminal justice and custody, training, control rooms, business support, investigations, community safety and community relations. However, it is important to appreciate that the Government and forces are identifying savings well beyond the scope of HMIC’s report.
	Pay accounts for the bulk of total police spending, which amounted to about £11 billion last year, so there is no doubt that pay reform and restraint must form part of the police savings package. That is why we have asked the police—along with the rest of the public sector—to accept a two-year pay freeze, which could save them at least £350 million a year. I note that the official Opposition now support that pay freeze. The first part of the Winsor review also made a number of recommendations, and the House will be aware of the Home Secretary’s recent announcement that the Government will approve the recommendations of the police arbitration tribunal. I note that the official Opposition also urged the Government to implement the tribunal’s findings. Once they have been fully implemented, those changes will save forces about £150 million a year.

Derek Twigg: I am listening with great interest to what the Minister has to say. He said that he did not believe that front-line policing was just about police numbers, but we believe that the front line will be badly affected by the cuts that he is making, especially in such places as Halton in Cheshire. Can he give a guarantee that the front-line response to incidents will not deteriorate over the period of this Parliament?

Nick Herbert: I believe that chief constables—including, notably, the chief constable of Cheshire—are committed to maintaining the quality of their front-line service, and to finding new ways of delivering that service, in the light of the reduced resource that they confront.
	The police do important, often difficult and sometimes dangerous work, and we should continue to value police officers and staff. I appreciate that changes to pay and pensions are difficult for them, but reform is necessary. The changes in police pay will not reduce basic pay, and, crucially, will help to protect police jobs, keep officers on the streets, and fight crime. Together, the changes in pay and conditions will save half a billion pounds a year on top of HMIC’s savings.
	The second way in which savings beyond those identified by HMIC can be achieved is through forces working together, harnessing their collective buying power and rationalising where duplication is wasteful and inefficient. The 43 forces of England and Wales have between them 2,000 different IT systems and 300 data centres, and employ 5,000 staff, yet—as officers frequently tell me—the IT systems in forces are still not good enough. We are therefore enabling forces to introduce better, more cost- effective IT arrangements, for instance through the proposed new ICT company.

David Ruffley: In the context of smarter and better procurement, can the Minister give us an update on the HMIC figure, which suggested that if all the 43 forces were as efficient procurers as the most efficient, £1.5 billion a year could be saved?

Nick Herbert: My hon. Friend has made a good point. HMIC savings were predicated on forces becoming as efficient as the average. One of the points that the Government have been making is that there is no reason why we should not raise force performance to the level of the best. That is not some arbitrary target; we know that some forces are already achieving greater efficiency. We believe that there is a potential for at least £180 million of savings per annum through ICT. Forces have already made substantial savings. Police spend was some £73 million lower last year than in 2009-10, and there are opportunities for forces to go further. We are using the national buying power of the police service—indeed, the whole public sector—to do things better and more cheaply. We are requiring the police to procure more and more equipment together. Those changes alone could save a further £200 million per annum by 2014-15.

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Nick Herbert: I will of course give way to the shadow Home Secretary, but I wonder whether she will confirm in her intervention that she supports the savings that we seek to make through collective procurement and better IT.

Yvette Cooper: We do think it right to make savings from procurement, but will the Minister explain why, if all these things are happening, 16,000 police officers are still being lost? Will he also confirm that 4,000 officers have already gone from the front line alone since the election?

Nick Herbert: All these changes mean that there will be a smaller work force. The Government have always accepted that. Some £2 billion a year needs to be saved, and most of the spending is on personnel, although a significant proportion is not. The savings that I have described can be achieved through more efficient working and, in many cases, fewer personnel. The question is, what will be the impact on the service and the performance of the forces? That is what the right hon. Lady simply will not focus on.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nick Herbert: I will give way to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee.

Keith Vaz: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way to me for the second time. Has he seen the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee by Dame Helen Ghosh? We were pushing the recommendation that we had made in a previous report that there should be a catalogue—Dame Helen kept referring to it as an Argos catalogue, but something more up-market would be more appropriate—[Interruption.] I will not refer to John Lewis, for obvious reasons. The catalogue in question, which would be approved by the Home Office, would ensure that police forces did not procure separately, but obtained the best possible national deal.

Nick Herbert: I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that that is effectively what we are doing. We are passing new regulations—we have just introduced the latest raft—which require forces to buy certain goods and items of equipment together. The savings that they are making are accumulating, and, as I have said, will eventually reach £200 million a year. I shall be happy to provide the Home Affairs Committee with an update on that, because I think it is a good story which shows that forces can make savings by working more effectively together. I note that the Opposition have conceded that savings can be made in that area. Those savings, too, are in addition to the savings identified by HMIC.
	The third way in which the police can find savings beyond those originally identified by HMIC is through transformation of the way forces work. HMIC said that savings of £1 billion a year could be found if the high-spending forces simply reduced their costs in a range of functions to the average of that spent by a similar force. However, if all forces achieved the efficiency levels of the best forces nationally, that would save a further £350 million a year. Why should not all forces be as efficient as the best?
	Outsourcing can also play a major role in effecting this transformation. The Government have been supporting Surrey and West Midlands forces and authorities in a joint programme exploring the value of business partnering. Broad areas of service can be covered, including a range of activities in, or supporting, front-line policing such as dealing with incidents, supporting victims, protecting
	individuals at risk and providing specialist services. This is not about traditional outsourcing; rather, it is about building a new strategic relationship between forces and the private sector. By harnessing private-sector innovation, specialist skills and economies of scale, forces can transform the way they deliver services and improve outcomes for the public. Every police authority in England and Wales bar one could join in, should they choose to do so. Under its own steam, Lincolnshire is about to sign a £200 million contract over 10 years with G4S. That contract for support services is available to the other forces named on the procurement notice.
	These are highly significant developments that open up the possibility of new savings across policing. The published potential value of the Surrey and West Midlands contract is between £300 million and £3.5 billion. I look forward to hearing whether the Opposition believe that such business partnering is the right way forward for policing.

Andrew Gwynne: May I take the Minister back to my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary’s point that HMIC has calculated that police numbers will fall by 16,000? Has the Home Office estimated how many of the posts that will be lost will be from the back office, because we know that 4,000 jobs have been lost from the front line in the first year of the Minister’s cuts alone?

Nick Herbert: The HMIC report said there had been a 2% reduction in the number of front-line officers. Judging by the hon. Gentleman’s face, he has not read that report, and I suggest he does so.
	Taken together, these reforms will result in far in excess of a 12% real-terms reduction in central Government funding. They will save over £2 billion a year. In fact, they will save more than the reduction in central Government grant of 20% in real terms. Let me repeat the following, therefore: the savings identified by HMIC are over £1 billion; the savings from pay are £0.5 billion; the savings from collective procurement and IT are £380 million; and the savings from bringing every force’s performance up to the level of the best are £350 million. The total savings, therefore, amount to over £2.3 billion, exceeding the reductions in police funding while protecting front-line services.

Yvette Cooper: According to the Minister, everything is hunky-dory, because if his figures are to believed there will be no negative impact on services. Why, therefore, has the Lancashire chief constable now had to decide that his force will have to change its response times? He has said:
	“If someone is absolutely insistent that they need to see an officer, they’ll see an officer. But…it might be that we negotiate either a delay or no deployment at all.”
	That is clearly an example of an impact on front-line policing, and the service provided to people who live in Lancashire, as a result of the scale of the Government’s cuts.

Nick Herbert: I very much doubt that the chief constable of Lancashire police—who is one of the best chief constables in the country, and who heads a high-performing force—would accept the right hon. Lady’s characterisation of his decision. Her entire contention is that front-line
	services are bound to be damaged simply because police numbers are falling. That is the equation that Labour always makes, but the fact is that the latest official figures show recorded crime falling, and according to the British crime survey the crime level is stable. There are areas of concern, and chief constables are fully aware of that. We all need to work hard to stay on top of crime. However, the Opposition cannot claim that overall crime is rising, or that falling police numbers are causing crime to rise. They cannot claim that because it is not true.
	In any case, Labour cannot attack falling police numbers as a result of these savings when it is committed to the same savings. The shadow Home Secretary backs over £1 billion-worth of savings as recommended by HMIC, but the shadow police Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), has told this House that when he was in office he planned to save
	“£500 million to £600 million from overtime and shift patterns”.—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 722.]
	That is far more than the HMIC’s £90 million of savings from better management of staffing rotas and overtime. Further, 12 days ago the shadow Home Secretary finally admitted that Labour backed the pay freeze for police officers and staff that is worth £350 million, and she said that that was not just for the next year but for future years as well. To be added to the £1.2 billion of savings recommended by HMIC, the savings from overtime and the pay freeze are the £150 million of savings recommended by the police arbitration tribunal and endorsed by the Labour party. In total, therefore, Labour has backed more than £2 billion-worth of cuts to police funding. Let me say this plainly: the Opposition cannot attack the cuts when they back cuts on the same scale. They cannot go around criticising falling officer and staff numbers when their savings would result in a smaller work force, too.

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Julie Hilling: rose—

Nick Herbert: I give way to the shadow Home Secretary.

Yvette Cooper: The Minister can put up all the smokescreens he wants, but he knows that we will back a 12% reduction in the policing budgets over the course of the Parliament, not the 20% cut that he wants. Will he confirm that his 20% cuts are leading to 16,000 police officers being lost, and that HMIC took into account his pay freeze and all the savings that he has outlined when it projected that 16,000 police officer posts will be lost? Will he now ditch his 20% plan, change instead to our 12% plan, and save those 16,000 police officer posts?

Nick Herbert: The right hon. Lady has been caught out. The fact is that the HMIC savings did not include the pay freeze or the savings from collective procurement, which just a few minutes ago she said could be made. [Interruption.] Two weeks ago, she was forced to admit that she backed that pay freeze. Her colleague the shadow police Minister tried to disagree with that, but she has confirmed that she backs the pay freeze. Those savings are in addition to the £1 billion. [Interruption.] They are in addition to the 12%. [Interruption.] It is no
	use the right hon. Lady just hectoring. If she pays attention for a second, she will learn that these pay restraint savings are on top of the HMIC savings. That is the whole point. The Opposition are attacking the cuts while backing the same scale of cuts themselves; it is just that they will not admit that to police officers or the public.

Yvette Cooper: Does the Minister agree that if he shifted from 20% to 12%, he could save thousands of police officer jobs across the country and improve front-line services? If he does agree with that, why will he not switch to the far more sensible 12%?

Nick Herbert: If the right hon. Lady agreed with that herself, why does she remain committed to these 20% cuts? That is what she is committed to: the HMIC savings plus the pay savings, the procurement savings, and the savings her shadow police Minister has identified through overtime. All of that adds up to far more than 12%. [Interruption.] She is shaking her head in denial, but that is the truth of the matter. The Opposition are pretending that they are not committed to the same level of cuts, but when pushed, they have to admit that they are. Police officers will know it, and the public will know it. The Opposition cannot credibly campaign against cuts when they remain committed to these levels of reductions in spending themselves.

David Ruffley: According to the House of Commons Library, if we take the spending review presumption that police authorities will choose to increase the precept at the level forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility, there will not be a 20% reduction by 2015; instead, there will be only a 14% reduction in real terms.

Nick Herbert: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. If forces choose to increase the precept, under the OBR expectation, the reduction would be less than 20%. Even if all forces froze the precept for the next three years, the reductions in police force budgets would be less than 20%. There is not a single force in the country that is facing a 20% reduction in budget. This is another way in which the Opposition either fail to understand what is going on or seek to present a different picture to the public.

Hugh Bayley: A few minutes ago, the Minister said that the crime figures were not rising, but in York they are. According to an answer from his junior Minister, the figure for York in the last year of the previous Labour Government was 14,480; it rose in the first year of the Conservative Government to 15,199. What, therefore, is the Minister’s strategy in areas such as mine, where he is cutting £5 million from our local police force budget, even though we need additional resources to counter the increase in crime since the Conservatives came to power?

Nick Herbert: I did say that there were areas of concern that forces would have to attend to. Overall, the figures were clear that recorded crime is down. If other forces are working within the available resources, why does the hon. Gentleman assume that the solution is to increase resourcing in his area? Perhaps the solution is better policing, better partnership and a focus on driving down crime in those areas. The question he must ask is:
	if other forces and areas are doing it and have had the same level of funding reductions, why cannot his? Labour Members instantly assume that there is a need to increase spending, and it is precisely that attitude that got the country into this mess in the first place. They simply will not focus on how money is spent—only on the call for more money to be spent.

David Wright: The Minister is being incredibly generous; he has given way many times, and it is appreciated. By their very nature, police community support officers provide front-line policing and support functions to the police. What is his estimate of the reduction in the number of PCSOs? They have been incredibly popular in the West Mercia area, yet the HMIC report says that we might lose up to 90. Does the Minister think that will happen?

Nick Herbert: The Government and I are strong supporters of PCSOs, and as I will mention in a minute, we continue to provide a substantial sum of money through the neighbourhood policing fund. In future, police and crime commissioners will decide how they wish to deploy that money, which will be rolled into the police main grant. I hope they will pay attention to views such as the hon. Gentleman expressed about the importance of PCSOs in providing a visible face of policing in neighbourhoods, and in offering that reassurance. They are a valuable addition to the police work force.
	Therefore, although the Opposition do not want to admit it, there is agreement about the need for savings in the police budget, and it is about time we all started to focus on how money is spent. Of course, visibility and availability of police officers matters, but that is affected by how officers are deployed, shift patterns and bureaucracy. If officers waste time filling in forms or doing a task which could be done more efficiently, they are kept from front-line duties. That is why we have announced a package of measures that will cut police bureaucracy and save up to 3.3 million police hours a year—the equivalent of putting more than 1,500 police officers back on the streets. That is why we are piloting live links technology, so that police officers can give evidence from their stations rather than wasting their time hanging around in court.
	However, police forces themselves can make the changes to improve front-line services within the available resources. HMIC’s report “Demanding Times” was clear about the need to match resources better with demand. It found that, on average, police forces had more officers visible and available on a Monday morning than on a Friday night, and the best forces had twice the visibility and availability of those at the bottom of the table. By changing shift patterns, targeting resources better, reducing time-wasting bureaucracy and using initiatives such as “hot-spots” or problem-oriented policing, forces can not only continue to deliver within reduced budgets, but continue to cut crime.

Julie Hilling: rose —

Dave Watts: rose—

Nick Herbert: The evidence from HMIC also showed that a third of the police work force, including some 25,000 police officers and PCSOs—a quarter of all
	police officers, in fact—were employed in the back and middle offices. There is plenty of scope to make savings while protecting the front line, even if the overall number of officers has to fall, and this is what is happening. HMIC’s most recent data show that the proportion of the policing work force in the front line is expected to rise over the spending review period. The Government’s commitment to helping to protect visible policing is clear, not least in the neighbourhood policing fund, through which we are making £338 million available to ensure that forces can continue to provide a dedicated, consistent and visible presence in their communities through PCSOs. Crucially, maintaining the fund in 2012-13 will ensure that police and crime commissioners inherit a fully functioning neighbourhood policing framework in November. From that time, the decisions about such resourcing will be for them.
	I now give way to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who has been patient.

Julie Hilling: I thank the Minister for giving way. I have been listening very carefully and I am somewhat confused. My understanding was that the Government were saying there would be no cuts to front-line services, but he seems to be acknowledging that there may be a cut to PCSO and officer numbers. My officers tell me that it now takes them much longer to deal with any case that they have to attend, because they cannot then get through to report it. Each case should take 10 minutes to report, but it is actually taking an hour because of the cuts to back-room services. What is the Minister’s view of the fact that cases are taking much longer for police officers to resolve?

Nick Herbert: I certainly think it important that forces guard against what is sometimes called reverse civilianisation—the idea that reducing the number of staff will increase the demand on officers. It is about re-engineering policing to make sure that processes are more efficient. Actually, there has been a huge growth in the number of staff in police forces over the past 10 years, and there has been scope to reduce that. The simple point is, of course, that if the number of staff had not been reduced by rather more than the number of police officers, that would have impacted on the latter. There is balance to be achieved here. Furthermore, police officers cannot be made redundant anyway.
	We have to get away from the idea that the quality of a front-line service can be measured only by the number of staff or how much money is spent on it. The National Audit Office’s report on mobile technology in policing, published two weeks ago, showed that under the last Government, £71 million was spent to deliver only a “basic level” of benefits. Four years later, the scheme has still not delivered value for money to the taxpayer. The NAO found that
	“not enough consideration was given to how forces would use the mobile technology, how much local spending was required or how realistic were the announced deadlines”.
	Let us hear less, in the constant demand to spend more money, about the focus on inputs, and rather more about value for money and how well this money is being spent.
	The fact is that across the country, forces are reducing budgets while protecting, or indeed improving, front-line services. Hampshire, for example, is saving money and
	reducing crime, and has made a public commitment to retaining local visible policing levels. Thames Valley has reduced business support costs such as HR, removed a layer of management and is collaborating with other forces. It has saved money and is to re-deploy officers to front-line roles in neighbourhoods or on patrol. Kent police has better matched staffing levels with demand, increased police officer availability, restructured the way it provides policing services, collaborated with Essex police, streamlined support services and is realigning some of its specialist policing functions. As a result, it has been able to deploy more officers to uniformed street patrols. It has increased police visibility with the public, the head count of neighbourhood officers and staff has increased by 50%, and public satisfaction levels have increased.
	It is therefore clear that, through changing the way forces do things, they can make savings and maintain or improve the service they provide to their communities.

Yvette Cooper: rose —

Nick Herbert: I will give way one last time.

Yvette Cooper: The Policing Minister has been generous in giving way. He boasts about the improvements in getting more police officers on to the street and into front-line jobs. Will he therefore admit that it is a serious problem that, since the election, 4,000 front-line officers doing front-line jobs have gone?

Nick Herbert: I really think that “boasting” is a silly word to use about what I am saying these forces are doing. I am describing what chief constables have done in adjusting to reduced resources, reconfiguring how policing is delivered and protecting the front line. That is not a boast from the Government; it is an explanation of how policing services can be transformed. [ Interruption. ] I suggest—if the right hon. Lady will draw breath—that she would do well to meet some of these chief constables and hear how they are achieving these aims.
	It is clear that forces, through changing the way they do things, can make savings and maintain or improve the service they provide to their communities. Our reforms will support this change: a police professional body, to be up and running by the end of the year, setting standards, improving training, equipping professionals to do the job and helping to reduce bureaucracy; a police ICT company to help the police deliver better value to forces for their ICT spend; and a new national crime agency, a powerful new crime-fighting force working across different police forces and agencies, defending our borders, co-ordinating action on economic crime and protecting children and vulnerable people. Police and crime commissioners will ensure that the police tackle local priorities and hold the chief constable to account, and they will drive value for money.
	This is a coherent agenda to build a modern, flexible and responsive police service, delivering value for money for the taxpayer and fighting crime. I commend this motion to the House.

Yvette Cooper: Today, the Government are asking Parliament to support an 8% real cut in their funding for police forces
	across the country next year. An 8% cut in one year alone is more than any other service is expected to make next year. Manchester’s chief constable has said that it will be
	“the most difficult financial year for policing in living memory”.
	Gloucestershire’s chief constable has said that his force now faces “a cliff edge”, and the Dyfed Powys police chief has said that he is
	“genuinely concerned about how we will be able to effectively protect our communities and bring criminals to justice”.
	Chief constables in Lancashire, Norfolk and South Yorkshire are all warning that the cuts will make it harder for them to fight crime—they are even warning that in some cases crime may rise as a result. Serious warnings are being sounded to the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice by chief constable after chief constable, but nobody in the Government is listening. Time and again, we have called on Ministers to think again and reopen the policing budget, but time and again they have refused to do so. Time and again, they have said that the police do not need the cash.
	Some £31 million has been cut from Manchester’s force, with cuts of £33 million from the West Midlands police and £13 million from the Devon and Cornwall police. Big cuts are being made to force after force next year, except in London. Three months before the mayoral election, and three weeks after the polls show Boris Johnson falling behind, the Government suddenly decide to reopen the budget for London—they suddenly decide to come up with a pre-election £90 million bung. The London Mayor has spent years cutting the Met police and the number of officers in London, yet suddenly the Conservative party has panicked and is trying to bail him out. Suddenly, the party has noticed that the public are angry about the cuts that Boris Johnson has agreed to their safer neighbourhood teams, their CID units and their police officers based in schools.

Nick Herbert: rose —

Yvette Cooper: I will give way to the Policing Minister if he can explain why he has suddenly decided to increase this funding just three months before the mayoral election.

Nick Herbert: I did explain why this coalition Government have increased the funding, and I should point out that both parties will be fielding candidates in the election. Will the right hon. Lady tell me clearly whether she supports the increase in funding for the Metropolitan police this year—yes or no?

Yvette Cooper: We certainly support extra funding for the Metropolitan police and for forces in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire, Humberside and across the country, which the Minister has abandoned because those areas do not have an immediate election where a Tory candidate is starting to struggle and fall behind.

Dave Watts: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a scandal that the Government parties are bribing the London voters because there is a crucial election, while at the same time they are cutting funding to areas such
	as Merseyside and to other police authorities that face major problems? Those problems are now not going to get dealt with because of the cuts.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is exactly right. This is happening from Merseyside to Norfolk and Gloucestershire; it is happening right across the country. We have been warning that the Government should reopen the funding formula for not only the Met, but other forces across the country, because the Minister’s plans are doing nothing for those other forces, which are facing those pressures. We have to wonder what the chief constables in other parts of the country have to do to get a break. Do they have to put on a blonde wig, jump on a bike and become a struggling Tory candidate to get the money they need? The Home Secretary should be more concerned about public safety than about the safety of Boris Johnson. This is a con for Londoners, it is a rip-off for the rest of the country and it is pork barrel politics at its worst.

Andrew Percy: The shadow Secretary of State will, as ever, wish to be honest with the House. If she were Secretary of State today, would she be coming to his House to cut the budget for Humberside police, in my area—yes or no?

Yvette Cooper: As we made clear, we believe that the force should have a 12% cut over the course of the Parliament. So, yes, forces would face reductions and would have to make savings, but that figure has been supported by chief constables across the country, by work done by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and by work that the former Home Secretary did before the election. That is why we think that ours is a reasonable approach to take, as opposed to making the deepest cuts in police funding seen for a generation—cuts of 8% in one year alone and cuts of 20% altogether. The hon. Gentleman’s local force is losing 500 police officers as a result of his Government’s plans. Will he be putting that on his election leaflet?

Andrew Percy: Does the shadow Secretary of State therefore agree that it may be seen as a little dishonest of local Labour politicians, who did not oppose police cuts in Humberside in 2009, under a Labour Government, to be on the streets now campaigning against police cuts, given that she has just admitted to the House that if she were Secretary of State she would be cutting my local police force today?

Yvette Cooper: Let us, again, be clear that Labour would not be cutting by 20%—we do not think that that is right. We think that the Government are going too far, too fast. They are hitting the economy and pushing it into reverse, but they are also hitting policing. The hon. Gentleman did not say whether he would be putting the cut of 500 police officers on his election leaflet, but I can tell him that we will be putting it on ours.

Nick Herbert: The right hon. Lady was a Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so I wonder whether she could assist me now. Will she confirm that the £1 billion of spending cuts that HMIC recommended, which she supports, and the half a billion pounds of pay freeze and pay reform through the Police Arbitration Tribunal
	decision, which she also supports—that is £1 billion plus half a billion—equals £1.5 billion, which is more than the spending reduction of 12% that she claims she is supporting?

Yvette Cooper: No, we are very clear that we support a 12% reduction and not the 20% reduction that the Minister wants. I have to say to him that if his fantasy figures added up, no police force across the country would be reducing the number of front-line officers, but forces are doing that and 4,000 officers have already gone as a result of his figures and of what he is doing. All the smokescreens in the world that he puts up will not stack up, given that police officers are being lost across the country. The reason why we believe that 12% is the right figure is because we want to protect the 16,000 police officers that his Government are getting rid of. That is why we think that we should have a balanced approach to the policing funding for the future. It is true that a 12% reduction requires pay restraint, procurement reforms and cutting bureaucracy and back-office processes—all those things have to be done within the policing budget to deliver the 12% savings. That is what police officers and chief constables are doing right across the country, but he knows what the consequences will be if he pushes them beyond that 12% because we are already seeing them. Some 4,000 front-line officers have gone already and 16,000 are to go in total. Why does he still want to support that number of police officers going?

Nick Herbert: This is an important debate and I am not clear as to whether the right hon. Lady does not understand HMIC’s report or whether she is seeking to present the savings in a way that is not justified. She has just said that the 12% savings—HMIC’s savings, which she has supported—include pay restraint, but they do not, as is absolutely clear from reading the report. I strongly suggest to her that she goes away to read it. Will she now accept that the HMIC savings did not include pay restraint and that by supporting pay restraint of half a billion pounds, as she has done, she is therefore going further than HMIC’s savings? Why does she not understand that?

Yvette Cooper: I am afraid that the Policing Minister is living in fantasy land. His figures simply do not add up, because 16,000 police officers are going as a result of his plans. We have made it clear that pay restraint was built into the Labour Government’s proposals from the beginning and we have supported it since; we need pay restraint to deliver the 12% savings. But if we want to protect the number of police officers, we need to have 12% savings and not 20% savings.
	The Minister will also know that when HMIC carried out its report that projected that 16,000 officers would be lost, the pay freeze he introduced was already in place. So HMIC has taken into account his pay freeze in saying that 16,000 officers would go and front-line services would be hit. That is happening across the country.
	The right hon. Gentleman needs to get in touch with what is happening in police forces across the country, because his coalition partners and Back Benchers are. What are they saying? Across the country—from London to Lancashire, from Norfolk to Devon—MPs are campaigning against cuts and against station closures. Listen to this, from an MP campaigning to stop station closures:
	“With well-known faces out on the beat, and a high police visibility, residents clearly feel safer, and crime goes down. Residents…value and cherish their local police team, and don’t want to see their numbers cut.”
	That is no rogue Back Bencher straying from the line—that was the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone). I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I did not notify the hon. Lady that I was going to refer to something that she, as a Home Office Minister, had said, which is a convention I like to respect. I had expected, however, that Home Office Ministers would be on the Front Bench to support the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, but it turns out that the Home Secretary cannot even convince her own team, never mind the country, that what she is doing to the police is right.
	By the way, where is the Home Secretary? Where is she, on the day that she expects Parliament to vote for the biggest annual cut to police funding for generations?

David Ruffley: I respect the right hon. Lady, but she must be aware—her memory cannot be failing her that much—that throughout the previous Parliament, the Minister of State responsible for policing always opened this debate and the shadow Minister, which was a post I held for a time, always responded. She knows that full well.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman will also know that in the previous Parliament the Government were not introducing the biggest cut to policing for generations and not taking responsibility for it. Last year, when a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government introduced the biggest cuts to council funding in a generation, the Secretary of State came to the House to debate it and to defend it. The Home Secretary has not done the same.
	The Home Secretary has a history of hiding. Yesterday, she had to be forced to the House to tell us what she was doing about Abu Qatada, and when our borders were breached, she went to ground. We have not seen her do a proper TV or radio interview for nearly six months. She is hiding from the media and hiding from this House. We miss her. We have hardly seen her since her conference fiasco with Catgate. I know she is keen on all things feline, but even Macavity used to appear once in a while. We urge her to come back. Once again, we are left with the poor old Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, with his smokescreens and his fantasy figures—hung out to dry by the Home Secretary again.
	The Minister obviously has not been talking to the Prime Minister, because today the Prime Minister claimed that the proportion of front-line police officers has increased. Today we heard from the Minister that the number of front-line officers might be cut, but the Prime Minister said that the proportion has increased. That is not true, is it? I ask the Minister to confirm whether he believes it is true that the proportion of front-line police officers has increased.

Nick Herbert: I am happy to intervene on the right hon. Lady at her request. She will find from HMIC’s work—she is not on good ground here—that it is discovering, in assessing forces, that the proportion of the policing work force on the front line has increased,
	is increasing and will be expected to increase over the spending review period. I would not stay on this ground if I were her.

Yvette Cooper: Let us look at the published facts from HMIC, which considered the number of police officers lost in the first year of this Government. Some 4,600 police officers were lost in that year, so how many were in front-line jobs? According to the Minister, none of them should have been, but of those 4,600 officers, nearly 90% were in front-line jobs. Some 4,100 officers have gone from front-line jobs—from neighbourhood policing, CID units and traffic units. Those are the data in HMIC’s own report, and the Minister clearly has not looked at it.

Nick Herbert: Yes I have.

Yvette Cooper: If he has looked at it, will he stand up and confirm that the HMIC figures show that in the first year of this Government the proportion of front-line officers fell and 90% of the officers who went were from front-line jobs? I ask him to confirm those facts from HMIC.

Nick Herbert: No, I cannot, as I have already told the right hon. Lady.

Yvette Cooper: He says he cannot confirm them, but shortly I shall hand him the figures from HMIC.

Dave Watts: Isn’t the proof in the pudding? I know from Merseyside that there are fewer police officers and will be fewer in the future. When coalition Members speak, I will bet that not one Tory MP will be able to get up and claim that police numbers in his area have not been cut and will not be cut in the future. That will be the test.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. In every force across the country, chief constables have been put in an impossible position and as a result they are saying that they have to cut front-line services. That is the impact of the Government’s decisions. The Minister is not admitting the facts. He will not stand up again and confirm the facts from HMIC, which show that in the first year more than 4,000 front-line officers have gone from front-line jobs. That is the reality of what is happening.

Wayne David: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the lack of candour from the Government is having a negative impact on police morale? If the Government do not support them, they are asking, who on earth will?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. The ducking and diving from Ministers shows how out of touch they are with what is happening in police forces and communities across the country. Communities know what is happening, because they can see it. Police officers are being taken off the front line and the number of uniformed officers working in custody suites, for example, has gone up, not down. In Birmingham, uniformed officers have been taken off the front line in order to monitor CCTV and, in Leeds, police officers are having to go back into the
	station between incidents to type up their own case notes because the support staff have gone. Whereas those officers would previously have been able to move from incident to incident, rapidly responding, they are now having to go back into the office to do paperwork instead.

Bob Blackman: The right hon. Lady has played strongly on the fact that 16,000 police officers are leaving, with 4,000 leaving, as she claims, in the past year. How many were past retirement age and could therefore choose to go and how many were on active duty, as opposed to light duty in police stations, in which case they would not have been available for police commanders to use in proper policing?

Yvette Cooper: HMIC’s assessment was that 4,100 of the 4,600 officers who went in the first year were from front-line jobs, according to the definition of front line that HMIC agreed with the Home Office. The hon. Gentleman also raises an important issue about people nearing retirement, and he will know that in practice chief constables in many parts of the country have been forced to push officers into early retirement when they did not want to go. A Staffordshire officer whom I am meeting tomorrow has said, “I would not have finished. I am not bitter, but very disappointed. The feeling is that there is no control over the mass exodus of experience—it is just going.” That is the reality of what is happening in forces across the country.

David Winnick: A number of very experienced officers in the West Midlands force have been told that they must leave, having completed their 30 years. Is it not important to bear in mind, however, what happened in August? Time and again during the terrible days of the riots, people were complaining that even with police numbers as they are there were not enough police around. They were pleading with the police to come in. If these cuts take place, if—unfortunately and tragically—we had riots once again, the situation will, as we know, be even worse.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We saw in the capital and major cities across the country that we needed police officers on the streets to take back the streets, calm the riots and prevent the damage that was being done, and it took 16,000 officers on the streets of London to calm the tensions and deal with the violence and the looting. Sixteen thousand officers is the number that this Government are cutting—the equivalent of every one of those police officers that it took to calm the streets of London on those awful August nights.

Julie Hilling: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only at times of riots, but on a Friday and Saturday, when knife crimes, street robberies and serious crimes of violence are occurring, that we need police officers on the front line? Not just at the acute time of riots, but week in, week out, we need officers on the streets.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Communities across the country know that. They want officers on the streets. They want to see police officers doing the job in their area. It is communities that will in the end pay the price for this Government’s decision. Time and again on Monday the Home Secretary told the House not just that there was no simple link, but that there was no
	direct link between police numbers and crime, yet look at the evidence from the Government’s favoured think-tank, Civitas, which said that
	“there is a strong relationship between the size of police forces and national crime rates...A nation with fewer police is more likely to have a higher crime rate.”
	The Policing Minister sniggers. Will he snigger, too, at the HMIC, which he quoted today, which said in research published last year that
	“a 10 per cent increase in officers will lead to a reduction in crime of around 3 per cent (and vice versa)”?
	That is the conclusion of the authoritative HMIC analysis of all the studies and the research that have been done, and this Government decide that they want to cut 16,000 officers at a time when personal crime is already going up by 11%.

Hugh Bayley: Under the previous Conservative Government the North Yorkshire police received not one single additional police officer, and crime in our county almost trebled. Under the Labour Government there were dozens and dozens of additional police officers—more than 140—and crime started to come down. Now the police numbers are down by almost 100 and crime is rising again. Surely that makes the case.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right that we had thousands more police officers under the Labour Government. We also had a historic 40% reduction in crime.
	The Conservative party used to get it. Here is what the Prime Minister himself wrote in the 2005 election manifesto for the Conservative party:
	“Put more police on the streets and they’ll catch more criminals. It’s not rocket science, is it?”
	No, it is not, yet now the Tory-led Government are doing the opposite. Once the party of law and order, they are cutting more from the police than from health, education, local councils or defence—more than from any other service. Personal crime, theft, robbery and violence are up by 11%, police officers down by 16,000—higher crime, fewer police, communities paying the price. This Government should cut crime instead of cutting police officers, and they should start by going back to the drawing board and voting against these plans today.

David Ruffley: Speaking as a former special adviser to the Home Secretary at the time of the Sheehy reforms in the 1990s and as a shadow police Minister in the previous Parliament, I think it is worth putting on record that policing is about leadership and that leadership from the top at the Home Office has indeed been supplied by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and her deputy, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice. They have shown a great deal of skill in negotiating a very difficult settlement for the police. The Winsor review has been an important contribution to getting more for less from the police budget. One does not have to talk up the Home Secretary’s book on this; the facts are quite clear. Part 1 of Winsor, which went to arbitration, has gone through with the support now of the Police Federation, and that is no mean feat.
	I shall not spend too much time rebutting the number crunching of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Even her own party accepts that there must be constraints on public spending, and that extends to the police force. Why? Because as a result of the economic crash in the previous Parliament, this country is now spending £120 million a day on debt interest alone. That cannot go on and public spending control is something that any responsible Government would have to put in place. The police force and the public understand that stark fact. I have yet to meet a police officer or a constituent who thinks the country can afford significant real-terms increases in police services.
	On the total Government grants before us today, we see that the reduction in Government funding including specific grant allocations will be 4% in 2011-12 and 5% in 2012-13. They will be lower in 2013-14 at 2% and lower still in 2014-15 with a 1% reduction. Across local government there has been a reduction in the amount of funding allocated to specific grants, and some of the specific grants that police authorities have historically been used to receiving, such as the crime fighting fund and the basic command unit fund, have been absorbed into the police main grant.
	Let us not forget that real-terms gross revenue had increased every year from 1996-97 to 2007-08. Those were very big sustained year-on-year increases. Sadly, they were spending increases that were allocated when we did not have the money on a sustainable basis. It was a boom time in the economy and the previous Government were spending money that they did not have.

Andrew Percy: My hon. Friend refers to the increases in spending in central Government grant, but does he recognise that much of the increase in spending locally came directly from local taxpayers through massive increases in the police precept—in my area 500% over the course of the previous Government—and that, similarly, is not sustainable and fair on local people?

David Ruffley: Council tax as a proportion of the total police spend that all police authorities have will be about a quarter for 2011. It was half that—12%—in 2001-02, so the statistics bear out the experience that my hon. Friend has had in his police authority.
	Returning to the historical increases, there was another interesting statistic that the Home Affairs Committee calculated. Between 2000 and 2008 the real-terms increase in total police spending was a whacking 20%, so I suggest, and I am sure Government Members would agree, that the police are looking at historically high real-terms spending figures over the past 10 years, compared with what they have ever had in the past. The shadow Policing Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position. Does he want to intervene?

David Hanson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will know that there was a 43% reduction in the number of crimes and the number of victims over that time. The two might well be related.

David Ruffley: I do not agree with the rather heroic numbers that the right hon. Gentleman gives for falls in crime, and I would not necessarily attribute that to brilliant Government policy. I would attribute it to hard
	work by police officers on the ground. He claims too much for himself, but that is not untypical of Labour politicians.
	Funding was made available in the spending review to help police authorities deliver a council tax freeze in 2011-12. Should every authority participate in the freeze, it is estimated that they will receive a total of around £75 million in each of the next four years to compensate for the income that they would otherwise have raised from council tax increases, and funding for this is pencilled into the settlement.
	Before moving on from the national police totals, I want to touch briefly on the claim made by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford that this is a 20% cut—she is obviously trying to get the soundbite off the runway. I think that she was referring to the published grant totals, but were she to look at total police spending and not just the grant figures, which means putting council tax into the equation and taking into account the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assumptions on forecast levels, she would see that the total police budget will clearly reduce spending by the end of this Parliament not by 20%, but by 14%, which is much nearer the 12% figure she coughed up for Labour’s plans. Therefore, we are not too far apart if we look at everything, rather than just the bits of the financial equation she was inducing us to look at. She gave us only half the picture.

Mark Reckless: My hon. Friend, in making his case, properly draws attention to the 14% real-terms cut, but does he recognise that, because of the pay freeze and reforms to police terms and conditions, the actual cut to policing services will be significantly less?

David Ruffley: I certainly do. My right hon. Friend the Policing Minister gave a tour de force earlier when he explained in detail exactly how we might achieve more for just a little less spending. I reinforce the fact that between 2000 and 2008 there were heroic real-terms increases, and they have not gone away. We are not wiping away from the baseline the very high totals that were accrued, sadly, on the back of money that we subsequently discovered the country did not really have. Nevertheless, this is by no means some hacking-off-of-limbs strategy, and I think that it does a disservice to a grown-up debate to suggest that it is a bleeding-stump strategy.
	I would like to say something about my local police force in Suffolk. Suffolk has the second lowest cost per head for policing out of the 43 forces in this country. It has an historically low crime rate, because by and large we are a very civilised and well-behaved county, which is why I am particularly proud to represent a Suffolk constituency. I acknowledge that the chief constable, Simon Ash, with whom I have a fruitful and friendly dialogue, is concerned about the effect that the spending constraints we are considering will have on his force. I do not agree with him, but it might be useful to remind ourselves of the composition of police spending in Suffolk.
	The general grant from the Home Office and the Department for Communities and Local Government to Suffolk for 2011-12 was £76.9 million. Specific grants added to that were £4.4 million. The council tax precept
	was £41.4 million, and fees and other charges were £6.4 million. That means that just over £129 million was spent in the current financial year on keeping Suffolk safe. The savings that the force has made in the past two years are quite instructive. The actual savings for 2010-11 totalled £2.6 million—consider that as a percentage of the £129 million spent overall last year—and the forecast annual savings for the current financial year are even higher, at £3.9 million. Projected savings for the four years from 2012-13 to 2015-16 are as follows: £7.3 million, £3.7 million, 2.3 million and £0.9 million.
	Approximately 60% of the savings in Suffolk over the comprehensive spending review period will be achieved through collaborative working and better procurement, particularly with Norfolk constabulary. That really bears out the statements that my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister made earlier. Suffolk is finding 60% of the savings not through vicious head count cuts to uniformed officers—over half the savings are the result of smarter thinking, which I think should have been done before now. In the last Parliament the totemic collaborative project was between Essex and Kent, which was the example everyone cited, but the Norfolk and Suffolk model undoubtedly equals that, because it is delivering the savings that should have been delivered many years ago.
	What about the number of uniformed officers? This is extremely politically sensitive—some might even say toxic—and much has been made of it by Opposition Members and Front Benchers. To provide some perspective, in my police authority area the number of full-time equivalent uniformed officers, as at 31 March 2009, was 1,291. At March 2010 it was 1,246 officers, and in March 2011 it was 1,241. The next set of figures is quite instructive. The chief constable argues that by 31 March 2015, if the one-year council tax freeze grant is accepted from April this year, the number of uniformed officers will be 1,189. Even if the council tax freeze grant is accepted, he predicts a reduction from 1,241 to 1,189. He says that if a council tax increase is approved from April 2012, the reduction would be fewer than 10 officers. If we go the council tax increase route, the number will fall from 1,241 to 1,232. He is arguing, as he has said in the regional press, that there will be a reduction in the number of police officers in Suffolk.
	The figures are not hugely welcome from my point of view, because I believe neither that we should increase council tax in Suffolk, nor that the chief constable needs to reduce the number of officers by the magnitude he suggests, and he argues that officers will have to be lost whichever route is taken. I firmly believe, and agree with the Government, that visible policing is not a direct function of the numbers alone. There is not a positive correlation of one between the number of officers and excellent policing.
	The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford was perfectly right to say that we needed 16,000 officers on the streets when the London riots were at their zenith, but those were, by and large, extraordinary events. We certainly did not necessarily need more police officers in order to get 16,000 on the streets. Many of us thought that rather bad management by the then leadership of the Met meant that it took three days or so to get 16,000 uniformed officers on the street. They existed, as we have more than 140,000 uniformed officers in Great Britain, so getting 16,000 Met officers on the street was not purely a numbers game; they were there already.

Andrew Percy: The shadow Home Secretary’s local chief constable at the time of the riots said that the issue was not about numbers, and he went on local TV to say that he had no issue with numbers and had, in fact, got enough numbers to “invade a small country”. Those were his exact words, on Yorkshire TV.

David Ruffley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

Gerald Kaufman: If the hon. Gentleman is so clear in his mind that the number of police on the streets does not necessarily correlate with the effective combat of crime, will he explain why the Liberal Democrat election manifesto—I realise he was not responsible for it—promised 3,000 more police on the streets?

David Ruffley: I am delighted to respond to both points.
	First, I did not say that the number of police officers on the streets does not matter, but I will make it clear that the number of uniformed officers in any force does not equate to the number of police officers on the street; we absolutely can have more visible police hours on the street with a theoretically smaller number of police officers, and I shall explain how that comes about. Let me repeat: we can have more visible police hours on the street with fewer officers than we have now, and if the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton will bear with me, I will explain to the House how that is possible.
	Secondly, on the Liberal Democrat manifesto, let me say why the party political to-ing and fro-ing is not terribly productive or profitable. The right hon. Gentleman’s party is campaigning—it would appear, from today’s debate—against the reductions in policing, which, it says, are cutting the number of uniformed officers and really will not do, but I just remind him of what the previous Labour Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), said on “The Daily Politics” just before the election. When he was asked whether Labour could guarantee that the number of police officers would not fall if it formed the next Government, he replied really rather elegantly, that no, he could not guarantee that police officer numbers would not fall. Most of us have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, who has one other virtue, which is clear honesty. He was not guaranteeing that more officers would be paid for if Labour won the election; he was not even promising that the same number would be retained.
	I shall explain briefly what I mean by “visible hours on the street”. There is a shocking statistic from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary—it was true under the previous Government and was still true last year—and it is that at any one time only 11% of the police officers in this country, of whom there are more than 140,000, are available for visible policing on the street. That is an amazing statistic: only one in 10.
	The question is, how can we get more police visible on the street, given that there are more than 140,000 of them? There are two ways. First, we should reduce bureaucracy. Now, I do not suggest for one second that reducing bureaucracy will make up for the current tough public spending round, but the Government have already taken incredible steps in their first 18 months in office. They have abolished the policing pledge, the public service agreement targets, more than three dozen
	key performance indicators, the fatuous local area agreement targets and the stop and account form, which in fairness the previous Government had also proposed.
	The current Government have also streamlined stop and search procedures. In addition, they have made changes to health and safety, and in addition to that they have abolished the quite nonsensical target, which police thought unnecessary, of drug tests for 95% of those arrested on trigger offences. That is quite an impressive reduction of bureaucracy in a first few months, and there is more.

Julian Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of police and crime commissioners will also bring more rigorous oversight to police budgets? From the perspective of north Yorkshire, where our local police authority spent £250,000 on legal proceedings against the chief constable, that will be a welcome move later this year.

David Ruffley: I am confident—it is my hope and, indeed, expectation—that with one person we will engender a greater and sharper sense of focus and accountability, which we lack under the current regime of 17-person police authorities.

Mark Reckless: Is my hon. Friend also aware that in a unanimous report the Home Affairs Committee came to the same conclusion, supported I believe by its five Labour members, that a single elected individual, instead of a diffuse police authority, will increase the focus on finding savings and is likely to drive out costs in policing?

David Ruffley: Yes, and to those who say that a single individual will not necessarily have the skills to provide leadership and to be a good manager and forensic accountant, the straightforward rebuttal is that one would expect someone who was going to be up for re-election after four years to have their mind focused on what the electorate wanted and to bring in people who could help with that work. At the end of the day, the mandate given to an individual, and the knowledge that they are accountable to the people, should certainly focus the mind—not the minds of 17 people in a diffuse police authority, but the mind of one individual, who will certainly be accountable as police authorities are not so accountable at the moment.
	On the ways in which a smaller number—not a hugely smaller number—of officers can deliver more police hours, I must say that they will be required to spend less time during the average shift in a police station and more time visibly on the streets. I have said that reducing bureaucracy is one way in which we can square that circle, but the Government’s future work, which I know my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister is driving forward personally, involves a streamlined crime recording procedure. The previous Government undertook such work, to which I shall be generous and pay tribute.
	The four-force pilot involving Leicestershire, West Midlands, Shropshire and Surrey created a more streamlined and time-efficient way of recording incidents, with police officers given the discretion, over a certain range of offences, to write shorter reports. I should like to see that regime become absolutely standard throughout the 43 forces, so it would be useful to hear how many have adopted it.
	There is more to be done on rolling back statutory charging. It is ridiculous that for quite a slew of offences a charging sergeant has to ring up the Crown Prosecution Service to get permission on some triable-either-way offences. It is fair to say that—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am very concerned that the hon. Gentleman is in danger of taking more time than the Front Benchers. That is not good for all those hon. Members who have waited a long time. We are on a time limited debate, which finishes at 3.47 pm and we have another 10 speakers to get in, so I hope that he is now coming to the end.

David Ruffley: I take note of what you have said, Mr Deputy Speaker, and shall bring my remarks to a conclusion; they were coming to a conclusion anyway.
	The second way in which we can get the police to spend more hours visible and out there, so that people are aware that they are around, is greater collaboration. I will not repeat some of the initiatives that the Government—this Home Secretary, this Policing Minister —have driven forward, but that work goes ahead in Suffolk, delivering the efficiency savings that can be ploughed back into the front line. As I said, the savings could amount to £1.5 billion out of the total police budget if all the forces became as efficient as the currently most efficient one. That money could be ploughed back into the front line to obviate the need for any significant reduction in uniformed officers.
	The message must go forth from this debate that in a tough economic climate, the spending reductions against historically high levels of police funding are not fatal to the fight against crime. The police must do more with less. The public want them to; they want the police to spend more time on the streets and less time behind their desks. In that spirit of cheerful optimism, I commend the Government’s policy and announcement today.

Lindsay Hoyle: I will now have to put a time limit on speeches. I am sorry to hon. Members waiting to speak; they must take the matter up with others. There is now to be a 10-minute limit, although that might have to be reduced.

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I completely understand what you have just said, but again and again when I come to the Chamber for time-limited debates, I find that huge amounts of time are taken. The Minister spoke for three quarters of an hour in a three-hour debate. I believe that in future there should be restraint from Government Front Benchers in time-limited debates.

Lindsay Hoyle: I do not want to get into an argument about either side. I understand that having a time limit is frustrating. A 10-minute time limit is being imposed. Members making speeches should take on board the fact that others are waiting to speak. I have brought in the time limit to try to get everybody in. That is the best that we can do. As I said, the limit may have to be reduced even further for later speakers.

Tony Lloyd: I should say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) that the Policing Minister was generous in giving way many times during his speech.
	The debate is of enormous import to the people of this country. A reference was made to chief constables having said that we had enough police to invade a small country. My constituents do not want to invade small countries; they want to feel secure on the streets of central Manchester and to know that their policing is adequate for their community.
	The vast majority of my constituents are decent, law-abiding people, but crime is still too high in Greater Manchester. The differential impact of the spending cuts is of itself a matter of enormous concern in a community such as mine. To be honest, the perception is that the patterning of spending on the police is being dictated more by political preference than by the objective needs of police forces. Government Members have argued that the cuts are much less, but Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s own reference points for Greater Manchester police say that we will lose 20% of our uniformed police services between 2011 and 2015.
	I pay tribute to the Greater Manchester chief constable and police authority. Greater Manchester has made enormous strides in recent years. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said, it is possible to make reductions in police spending, but it is not possible to make indefinite such reductions. That is our problem.
	Crime has been falling. In an earlier exchange, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), the shadow police Minister, rightly made the point that crime fell by 43% during the last Labour Government. That was a function, at least in part, of the increase in spending provided by that Government. It is not possible to say that cutting out 20% of the uniformed police in Greater Manchester will not have a detrimental effect on the police’s ability to detect and deter crime. One cannot argue about that with reference to efficiency savings.
	Nor is it possible always to use the sleight of hand that says that only the front line matters. If the police are not supported by proper back-room staff—sometimes uniformed police, sometimes civilian—they simply cannot properly do the job that we expect of them. It is important for us to remember that and to recognise that there are strong limits.
	As it happens, and happily, crime has continued to fall in Greater Manchester. That is a great tribute to the police service and those involved. However, the real concern is this: a number of things begin to come together. For example, we have seen the continuing rise in unemployment. I do not intend to discuss the causes of that. Whatever our arguments about the economy, most people accept that unemployment, a lagging indicator, is likely to continue to rise. We are seeing the largest number in a long time of young people unable to find employment. It is not certain, but we know from historical precedent that that will place pressure on those young people in terms of the potential for a rise in certain types of crime. Faced with that, police numbers still continue to drop, and frankly that is both reckless and irresponsible.
	The Policing Minister is bravely sitting alone, unaccompanied by the Home Secretary and not surrounded by his colleagues. He has had to plough through and justify the fact that the Home Office caved in to the Treasury when the current comprehensive spending review settlement was made. As a consequence, we can ask the police service to make efficiency savings, but that will begin to peter out.
	In the case of Greater Manchester, we know what will happen this year and next year; the real concern is that 2014-15 will be the point when we fall off the edge of the cliff. Neither the Policing Minister nor the Home Secretary nor the Prime Minister can give us any kind of reassurance that the police service will not then be in a state of enormous difficulty.
	The chief constable of Greater Manchester is already on the record as having said that this year’s settlement means
	“the most difficult financial year for policing in living memory”.
	If this is the most difficult year, but we continue to see cuts year on year beyond that, we have to ask the Policing Minister and others to look at the situation. I know that he is not in a position to give a commitment that the situation will be reviewed, but if that indefinite abyss is to open up in front of us, we will have to have change from the Government. There will have to be a reversal of the speed and depth of the cuts that apply to communities across Greater Manchester.
	I have said before to the Policing Minister that during the riots the police force across the country was stretched. Serving police officers rightly went from Greater Manchester to help in London. However, that meant that when the riots broke out in Manchester, some of our officers were helping out elsewhere. We had the advantage of being able to call in police officers from places as far away as Strathclyde, but while the riots broke out in Manchester Central and in Salford, there were strong rumours that there was the capacity for riots to break out elsewhere in Greater Manchester that night. Had that happened, the already thinly stretched line of police officers would have been stretched to the point of there being an enormous problem, even with the capacity to back-fill from other police force areas.
	I do not want to predict a repeat, but notwithstanding the Minister’s view that there would not be problems, there is a concern in Greater Manchester that if there were a repeat—the riots did come out of nowhere—we would simply not have the capacity to deal with the situation. That issue has to be taken on board. However we magic the arithmetic, of the 140,000 police officers nationwide, 16,000 needed to be deployed in the capital to quell the riots. That would have left precious little margin for the rest of the country if things had begun to go wrong elsewhere. In policing our communities we must not only think about what happens on a regular Tuesday morning, but recognise that catastrophes happen. Those are real issues for us to take on board, whether in the west midlands, Greater Manchester and other metropolitan areas, or in rural areas.
	The Minister rightly paid tribute to our serving police officers. During the riots, officers were asked to confront rioters and those dangerous situations, and it is easy to say that we expect an enormous amount from the men and women who serve in our police force. At the moment, however, morale is not good across the police service for
	a number of reasons. The police rightly believe that they are being asked to take not a pay freeze, but a real-terms pay cut, and that problem touches on morale. Perhaps such measures are needed during this period, but when they are added to the sense of grievance and uncertainty felt by the police because of what they—and large numbers of the public—regard as the arbitrary nature of the cuts, they amount to a serious impact on morale which we must register. If we praise our serving police officers when, as expected, they take the risks that society places on them, we as a community and a society must deal with morale when it is a problem.

Julian Smith: I have had a contrary experience in my constituency. I had a meeting with Inspector Robert Thorpe in Ripon last week. He was relishing the challenge of doing more with less, and looking at productivity and at how he could play about with rotas and make his staff more productive. I pay tribute to his work, and I am sure that there are examples of such work in Manchester’s police force that the hon. Gentleman will highlight later in his speech.

Tony Lloyd: Had the hon. Gentleman been listening to my speech, he would have heard that I spoke at the beginning about the great strides that have already been made by the chief constable, the police authority and the police to make the service more efficient. There is no doubt that numbers of people have gone, and that that process has been managed so far. My argument—the hon. Gentleman may wish to ask his own police force about this—is that there is a point beyond which we cannot go. The loss of 20% of Greater Manchester's uniformed police by 2015 and a similar loss in numbers of non-uniformed staff cannot happen without its impinging on our ability to provide the visible policing that the Minister and others claim to want.
	People in Greater Manchester are desperately concerned that the cuts are too fast and too deep, and that when push comes to shove, problems will emerge not in the Prime Minister’s constituency but in the inner-city areas of Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham, and other equivalent areas. We are not getting the Boris bung that the Metropolitan police force has received, and the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) ought to raise that issue with the Policing Minister. Historically, the Metropolitan police force has been better funded than the police in other metropolitan areas, and in a difficult financial year and when other metropolitan areas are being denied, it is hard for us once again to see London given an increase in spending. These cuts are too fast—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Tom Brake: I will endeavour to stay well within your time stricture for this debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought that the debate on police funding had shifted in recent days, and that the Labour party had recognised that it supports many of the measures that the coalition Government are introducing, such as the pay freeze, reforms to police overtime and the 12% savings as recognised in the HMIC report. We have also heard that the Labour
	party cannot guarantee to restore any of the budget reductions that the coalition Government have had to make.
	I thought, therefore, that some solutions would perhaps be deployed today, that there would be some recognition that the measures taken and the budget cuts were necessary, and that the Government and the Opposition would try to find ways of making better use of police resources. Unfortunately, we heard nothing of the sort from the Labour party. It may be that on the Labour Benches there are prospective candidates for elected police and crime commissioners. If they are elected in November, they will be responsible for police strategy and budgets. Perhaps it is down to them to outline how they would make better use of police resources, because I am afraid that the shadow Home Secretary, who has just left her place, did not do that in her opening remarks.
	This debate should be about how we can make better use of the resources that there are. I will give a few examples of how that can be achieved. I make no apologies for again mentioning the Safer Sutton partnership. The Minister has been to see how that works for himself. It is a fantastic example of the police working closely with the local authority and pooling resources. A concrete example of that work, which led to a saving and a better service, was when the local authority stopped providing parks police and took on safer neighbourhood teams to work in the parks. The Met was able to police the parks more cheaply than the local authority, and uniformed officers performed the roles. That was welcomed across the board and represented a saving for the local authority.
	The Government could improve policing by relying more heavily on the evidence of what actually works. Again, I make no apologies for repeating this point in the Minister’s presence. Generalisations are often made about what leads to improvements in policing and to reductions in crime. I had an interesting e-mail exchange with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is not in his place, in which he suggested that the level of crime dropped significantly as a result of a significant increase in incarceration. However, the evidence from the US is that, although it has seen a large increase in prison numbers, only 10% of the reduction in crime can be attributed to that increase. Far too many simplistic conclusions are drawn. We should develop a body of research—this is starting to happen—to look at what is and is not effective. Perhaps we could ensure that it is all held in one place. Chief constables and, when they are elected, police and crime commissioners should have to refer to that evidence to see whether it suggests that their proposals will be effective or less effective than they think.
	We should focus on reinforcing policing by consent, which is central to this debate. We can have as many police officers as we want, but if there is general dissatisfaction or a collapse in discipline, as we saw during the riots, it will be difficult for the police to manage it. We need to boost people’s confidence in the police to ensure that we have policing by consent. That is why the Liberal Democrat mayoral candidate, Brian Paddick—who I am sure would not be in favour of a bung to Boris, as the Labour party has put it—has focused heavily on stop and search and
	its impact, particularly on black and ethnic minority communities. It reduces the willingness for there to be policing by consent in some of those communities.
	We need to be able to draw in other resources. There are some good examples of that. In Bonnington square, the local community has got together to self-police an area where there has been a problem with muggings. That model could be extended. It does not draw heavily on police resources, apart from there being a need for the group to have direct contact with the police. If it can be built on existing community groups, rather than requiring groups to be established simply for that purpose, which may run the risk of vigilantism, that would be a sensible model. Again, that is Brian Paddick’s proposal—Paddick’s patrols he calls them. It could help us to do more with less in policing.
	We need better use of existing resources, which is what the HMIC report is about. In London, I know that our Liberal Democrat colleagues are pressing very hard to get rid of some of the rather generous police perks for very senior officers, such as chauffeured cars, which would free up some resources to be used more effectively. For instance, such resources could be used to support safer neighbourhood teams and ensure that the number of sergeants in them is maintained.
	My final point brings me back to the fact that we should not always assume that a particular policy has a direct impact in another area. The Government’s work on problem families could have a much greater impact on policing issues than any other measure that they could take. A focus on the relatively small number of families who, for whatever reason, require more input than others from various services could have a really beneficial long-term impact on crime levels.
	We need to shift this debate from what I now acknowledge was a rather simplistic linear link between police numbers and crime levels, and instead consider what is most effective in preventing and tackling crime.

David Hanson: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but may I take him back to the debate that we had before the election, when I stood at the Government Dispatch Box and he sat on the Opposition Benches? He argued that the settlement that I had put forward as Policing Minister was not sufficient, and said that he wanted 3,000 more police. What has changed in the subsequent years that now causes him not to want those police officers?

Tom Brake: I have answered exactly the same question from the right hon. Gentleman in other debates recently, and I will give him the same answer as last time. First, the 3,000 police officers were part of a package to be paid for by getting rid of identity cards. Of course, that element has now understandably been subsumed into dealing with the huge deficit that we inherited from his party, which is why we no longer advocate additional police. Secondly, that has rightly put pressure on us to recognise that simple police numbers are not the solution and that it is actually about effective deployment. The coalition Government have recognised that, and the Liberal Democrats are pressing for it. I wonder whether the Labour party might want to follow that approach, too.

Gerald Kaufman: It is undeniable that under this Government, in the year and three quarters for which they have been in office, the police have suffered serious setbacks in funding and staffing, and are doomed to suffer far more. The excellent record of the Greater Manchester police force in crime reduction and detection is likely to suffer—it says so itself—to the severe detriment of our constituents, whom, in the end, this is about.
	Yesterday evening, the chief constable of Greater Manchester came to the House of Commons to brief hon. Members about the situation that Greater Manchester police faces. We must consider it in the context of the crime reduction figures that it has achieved, which are exemplary, with reductions in every category. It is on target or within 10% of the target on all the main priority performance measures in the 2011-12 policing plan. There are excellent prospects of its achieving the end-of-year target for serious acquisitive crime, domestic burglary, vehicle crime and serious violent crime, and good prospects of its doing so for total crime, antisocial behaviour and theft.
	Greater Manchester police’s detection rates are higher than this time last year in all priority areas, with good prospects of its achieving the end-of-year detection targets for serious acquisitive crime, domestic burglary, vehicle crime, serious sexual offences, robbery and rape. That is what it has achieved.

Gordon Birtwistle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Kaufman: I will, although the hon. Gentleman has not been here for the debate and has just come into the Chamber a few minutes ago. If he wants to intervene on me, he can do so.

Gordon Birtwistle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not intend to intervene in the debate, but his comments led me to do so. Should we not congratulate the chief constable of Greater Manchester police on delivering what he has delivered with less money, rather than complain about what is going on there?

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman could have said that to the chief constable himself if he had bothered to turn up for the briefing yesterday evening.
	The cuts that are going to take place will damage what Greater Manchester police has been able to achieve. There is a shortfall of £134 million over the four years to 2014-15, and funding is down for the predictable future. Already, there has been a fall of 4% in the number of police officers available to the force, and there will be a huge fall from 7,656 to 6,556 by 2015.
	In considering what the feelings of Greater Manchester police are, I turn to Inspector Damian O’Reilly, one of the finest police officers in this country. He operates in my constituency and was the winner of the national award for community police officer of the year. He contacted me last evening and told me that I was welcome to quote him by name. He says that the cuts are
	“cutting away at the muscle of the organisation, not just the fat…With cuts to pay and conditions we feel really undervalued.”
	That is what one of the most outstanding police officers in the entire country has to say. He has a fantastic record of crime reduction and control, so his views are more authoritative than mine or those of anyone else in the Chamber.
	Let us look at how other people are feeling about the cuts. I received a letter a few days ago from a police constable in my constituency. I will not mention her name, because I do not have her authority to do so, but she wrote:
	“I have great concern in relation to the police pay and condition that I will be victim of this year, paying more in to my pension and working for longer hours for less pay…I work full time hours and have a mortgage to pay for, I am genuinely worried about my future with the police force and how it’s going to affect my financial status.”
	With sentiments and misgivings of that kind, how can she and her colleagues be expected to continue to give their full heart and attention to preventing crime? Of course detecting crime is important, and Greater Manchester’s figures on that are excellent, but we need to prevent crime. If we send a police constable who feels like that out on to the streets, she will still work as hard as she possibly can. How should we feel about exploiting such people and not giving them the recompense and recognition to which they are undoubtedly entitled?
	The issue is not simply police detection, but, as the previous speaker pointed out, social environment. In constituencies such as mine, where unemployment is at 10.3%, and youth unemployment is twice that, we are forcing kids out on to the streets. The overwhelming majority of young people are decent and law-abiding and will never commit a crime, but if they are out on the streets, with no facilities, having been forced out of higher education by the abolition of the education maintenance allowance, they are put in temptation’s way. It is essential that we stop that.
	As the chief constable concurred in our discussion yesterday evening, although the sharp end of policing is important, so is the social background and context. He explained how his people work with social organisations both to reduce crime and to reclaim those who have committed crimes. If we shove young people into prison or detention when we could do other things to make them good citizens, they will learn how to be criminals. If they are out of prison and not committing offences, they can learn to be good citizens.
	An organisation in my constituency called Reclaim does marvellous work to reclaim young people who have offended and give them socially useful tasks. It incorporates them into an organisation in which they know and respect one another. The police work with Reclaim, which is one of the most important bodies in stopping young people turning away from law and order and into crime. I very much hope that its recent application for £125,000 from the social action fund, administered by the Cabinet Office, will be favourably considered. Money spent on policing is important, and I deplore the cuts in the moneys available to spend on policing, but money to reclaim young people from potential lives of crime and make them into good, valuable, positive citizens with a social commitment is even more important.
	The police, and certainly those in Greater Manchester, do a fine job. They have wonderful connections with the local population. Inspector O’Reilly does “report back”
	meetings, the most recent of which was attended by 600 people, which shows the extent to which the police are connecting with the people in Gorton and the rest of my constituency. They do a fine job and deserve far better.
	My constituents want to feel safe when they go out on to the streets and in their homes. That is not being helped—it is being damaged—by this Government of cuts and stunts. The chief constable has said how valuable co-operation is, and I agree with him. I hope we can work together to reduce crime and to give the members of our police force the confidence that we in the House of Commons support them in the essential and often dangerous work that they do.

Andrew Percy: This has been an entertaining and enlightening debate. I apologise for having to leave it for a short period to attend a lobby.
	I have listened to the debate with great interest. My gast has been flabbered on occasion as I heard Labour Back Benchers criticising police cuts, while the shadow Secretary of State confirmed in response to my question that she would cut my police force were she Home Secretary today. She also said that she would cut the police force of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and every force in the country, with the possible exception of London—although she criticised extra funding for London, she also appeared to support it.
	I was staggered to hear some of the things that Labour Members said, for precisely the reason I highlighted when I intervened on the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice. In 2009, police numbers in my police force—Humberside—fell by 137. As I said, we saw not a single Labour politician criticising that reduction on the streets or in the newspapers. In fact, they made the case for reducing those numbers by stating that reducing numbers did not necessarily mean reducing the impact of front-line policing. Labour Members now have the audacity to go out on the streets in parts of my area—although not in my constituency—gathering signatures for a petition against police cuts. I suspect the petition is not quite so honest as to say, “We do not support the Government’s cuts, but we support the Opposition’s cuts of at least 12%.”

Tony Lloyd: Did the hon. Gentleman campaign for or against the police cuts in the previous Parliament?

Andrew Percy: I was obviously not a Member of the House in the previous Parliament, but I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at my voting record on police motions since I have been a Member.

Tony Lloyd: With respect, I asked whether the hon. Gentleman campaigned for or against those cuts. He was outside the House, but he was a candidate.

Andrew Percy: I spent 10 years as a local authority councillor, representing an area in the city of Hull where there was a huge increase in antisocial behaviour. I spent most of my time campaigning to get more police on the streets. My primary concern throughout was visible, effective policing. I suspect that we—my constituents
	in my council ward and I—never obsessed about total numbers; we obsessed about getting people on to the streets to fight crime. I have the same obsession today.
	I note the bizarre position of Labour politicians. They oppose cuts but have confirmed in the House that they would significantly cut the policing budget. They were also very supportive of cuts before the election. In the run-up to the general election, the probation service in Humberside had its budget cut by 20%, but not a single Labour politician was on the streets in Brigg and Goole or elsewhere in Humberside to criticise that. Perhaps—heaven forbid—people say one thing in government and another when they are in opposition.
	On the previous Labour Government’s record on policing, I was intrigued by the intervention of the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley), who spoke of those glory days of policing in North Yorkshire. The beauty of being a born-and-bred Yorkshireman—I have lived there all my life—is that I remember seeing on television, during those Labour years, North Yorkshire police force condemning its traffic officers and vehicles to the yards because it did not have enough money to pay for diesel.

David Hanson: rose —

Andrew Percy: I will happily give way to the shadow Minister—he can tell us whether he is in line with the shadow Home Secretary on freezing police pay, because the House is entertained by that spat.

David Hanson: Will the hon. Gentleman check the facts when he goes to the Library of the House after this debate? He will find that there were 126,000 police officers in 1997 and 144,000 to 145,000 in 2010, which is an increase of about 20,000 police officers on the beat and on the streets. He will also find that there was a reduction in crime of 43% over the period.

Andrew Percy: I am disappointed that the shadow Minister did not take that opportunity to explain why the same Labour politicians who now criticise police cuts in Humberside failed to utter a word in 2009 about the reduction in numbers. I will gladly give way again if he wishes to explain that to the House and my constituents, who I am sure are watching.
	I turn to the record of policing and the crime figures, which people often bandy around. I am a cynic when it comes to crime figures because I think that what people see on the ground is different from recorded crime, although I note that I used to criticise crime figures while in opposition and that the Labour party is now criticising this Government’s crime figures—so perhaps we are all guilty of flip-flopping on this matter.
	Nevertheless, I recall that when I was a local councillor trying to deal with a significant increase in the number of recorded cases of antisocial behaviour, police precepts in Humberside rose by 500%, and our local police force spent lots of money building police stations for its so-called neighbourhood policing agenda before abandoning or having to find alternative uses for them after changing their minds again.
	I also recall £6 million of Humberside’s policing budget being spent on policing overtime, despite the huge waiting list of people wishing to be specials. I remember chairing the licensing committee when 24-hour
	drinking came in and seeing the huge impact that it had on city centre drinking in the city of Hull, as it was known then. No resources were provided for that.
	I also recall a huge amount of central control. Despite what was said about policing numbers, in the area that I represented and in many rural areas of Humberside, across east Yorkshire and north Lincolnshire, under diktats from central Government, policing resources were drawn into Hull city centre and other town centres, at the insistence of the Home Office, in order to deal with volume crime. That left communities such as mine with no police cover during evenings and weekends.
	I question whether these increases in police numbers resulted in an increase in the numbers of front-line officers. Perhaps it is a generational thing, but people always say to me, “You never see a police officer on the street.” People said that 10 years ago when I started as a councillor, but perhaps they said the same thing 10 years before. Perceptions vary, however, so I note that Labour’s record on policing and crime might not be quite as presented by some Opposition Members.
	It is interesting that the shadow Home Secretary confirmed that she would cut police budgets across the country. That might be some welcome honesty in the politics of the Opposition—we do not often hear much clarity on their budgetary policies. Nevertheless, she admitted that she would cut the policing budget significantly, so we all seem to agree that we cannot continue to invest the same amount of money as we have in the past three years, and that we must find another way forward.
	As the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice made clear, people need to work more closely together. Over the past 10 years in one east Yorkshire community, a new fire station, a new ambulance station and a new police station have been built—nobly, perhaps—but with public money and in isolation from each other, with all the extra costs that that entails. I meet with some resistance when I talk to the police, because although they talk about wanting to work together more closely, it is always with other police forces. I am not sure that they fully understand the need to work together more closely with other emergency services and local authorities.
	It always struck me as a bit bonkers that we had a chief executive for the fire authority, a chief executive for the police authority and different financial officers. Surely those back-office costs could be merged. My chief constable, Tim Hollis, is an excellent chief constable and I support a lot of his work in Humberside, but although he is open to working together more closely, it concerns me a little that that seems to be about working with other police forces, because there are real opportunities to engage with local authorities in order to reduce some of these costs.
	Local authorities have a role as well. One of the two local authorities that I represent, North Lincolnshire council, which, as Members will remember, was the only council to go from Labour control to Conservative control last May—thanks to all the gains in Brigg and Goole—is considering using some of the council’s budget to support community policing across my area in order to meet the policing challenges. Admittedly, that is not new—for several years from 2000, despite the apparently fantastic settlement from the Labour Government at
	the time, the Labour council in Hull still felt the need to put £1 million of council tax payers’ money into policing. Therefore, there is a role for local authorities.
	We have a choice. We can stand up and do the cheap politics, while also wanting to cut the police budget significantly, or we can try to find local solutions. I would love it if we could pepper money around all over the shop and put police officers on every street corner—we would all like that to a lesser or greater extent—but in reality policing budgets are under pressure, so we can either moan from the sidelines or we can engage with our local police forces and local councils, and have them come up with solutions and ways of doing things smarter and more cheaply, and, if necessary, use some of the additional resources. Local authorities employ thousands of people, and there is the potential for working together more closely than has been the case, although I accept it happens in some areas. That will be the challenge for us all as we move forward.
	We might not like the position that we are in, but we know why we are in it, although I have not felt the need to remind the House of it. We have to be grown-up about this. What concerns me most is that by making cheap politics out of it, people are undermining confidence in policing, which we all know is very important.

Jack Dromey: In August, Birmingham was hard hit by outrageous and unacceptable behaviour that saw communities terrorised, but led by our admirable chief constable, Chris Sims, police officers restored order. They were truly heroic. They were the thin blue line protecting communities from rioting and robbery.
	What was absolutely wrong, however, was Conservative Ministers returning from holiday in their Bermuda shorts seeking to take the credit despite having had nothing to do with the work of restoring order to the streets. What was absolutely wrong was crazy talk about baton rounds, water cannon and bringing in the army, which would have led to a downward spiral into yet further violence. The police were right to reject such nonsense and instead defend the British model of community policing. They, themselves, have learned painful lessons from history, from Scarman, through Macpherson and onwards, that we can only police the community with the support of the community. It was Chris Sims who said that had it not been for that support, his officers would have struggled to restore order.
	When Labour was in government, we, together with the police, made a real difference—they, on the one hand, evolving that unique model of British community policing, and us, on the other hand, investing in the police service, resulting in nearly 20,000 additional police officers and 16,000 extra police community support officers. The consequence was a 43% reduction in crime. We were the first Government in history to leave office with crime falling rather than rising.
	What is also absolutely wrong—I ask Government Members to search their conscience on this—is to break a promise. The Liberal Democrat Leader said, “Vote for me and you will have 3,000 extra police officers on the beat.” Not one Conservative Member went to his or her constituents and said, “Vote for me and I’ll cut the number of police officers on the beat.”
	The consequences in the west midlands are serious. Twelve hundred police officers are going. We have heard some creative accounting and fantasy figures, but may we return to the real world of what is happening at the sharp end? Some 634 officers have gone already, most of them forced out under regulation A19, and among them are some of the most outstanding police officers in Birmingham and Britain. There is Tim Kennedy, a detective with one of the best records of tackling acquisitive crime and a high detection rate; Tony Fisher, who put away, first, a robber who had stolen from pensioners at cash points for 13 years and then a machete-wielding robber of local shops for 17 years; Dave Hewitt, an outstanding neighbourhood sergeant; and Mark Stokes, the acknowledged national expert in designing out crime on our streets and estates. Sixteen officers are going from the counter-terrorism squad, including the head of counter-terrorism and the head of crime. All are being forced out against their will. They are some of the best officers I have had the privilege of working with—I am proud to call them friends—but they are being forced out at the age of 48 or 49.
	To add insult to injury, some of the officers forced out under A19 were approached after the riots by G4S, which was brought in to help deal with the post-riots investigations, and asked whether they would like to come back and work as a police officer once again, but this time for G4S, actually costing the taxpayer more. We also had some absurdities, such as when the community in Quinton was told, “We’ll no longer be able to keep open the front office”—where the public come in and interface with the police—“but perhaps we could, if you were prepared to man the police station yourselves.” Where will it end? Next the Government will be asking local communities to arrest criminals themselves.
	We have heard repeatedly from the Government—I quote the Home Secretary—that “We can make all these savings while protecting the front line.” However, let me set out what we have discovered is actually happening on the ground, right now, in the west midlands. Thirty-two front-line police officers—some of the best still serving—have been taken off the front line and put into the back room, because the police are having to cope with cuts on an unprecedented scale and at an unprecedented speed. As a consequence, there are two detectives in Birmingham South who are off the front line and into the back office; three in Sutton Coldfield—off the front line, into the back office; four in Birmingham South, Bournville neighbourhood—off the front line, into the back office; four in Coventry—off the front line, into the back office; eight in Dudley—off the front line, into the back office; and 11 in Solihull—off the front line, into the back office. They include one officer, in Birmingham South, Bournville, who has been taken off the front line and put into a back office to do filing, in the post-riots filing system.

David Ruffley: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not doubt that those movements to the back office have been made, but that is exactly the kind of thing that the Government think is wrong. I wonder whether he could share with us the explanation of the chief constable, who is ultimately answerable for that movement of uniformed officers into the back office.

Jack Dromey: With the greatest of respect—I genuinely have great respect for the hon. Gentleman—it is wrong to cut the police and then blame them for those cuts. If we impose unprecedented cuts at reckless speed, we force the very best in the leadership of our police service into a nigh-on impossible situation. They are trying to manage that deeply difficult situation well, but it is one that will inevitably lead to perverse outcomes. That is the simple reality. Instead of quoting inspectors saying, “I relish the challenge,” as was done earlier, it is about time that this House listened to what is happening at the sharp end. Indeed, one of those front-line officers contacted me just yesterday. It was heartbreaking to hear a good man who has given all his life to our police service saying, “I never thought this would happen to me. I was dedicated to the job I was doing. I feel now that I’ve got no alternative but to leave the police service.”
	Let me say this in conclusion. The police do not always get it right. I think all hon. Members will have experience of having to intervene locally, in dialogue with the police, in response to pressures from the community. However, I know from my experience that what the police always do—precisely because they are champions of community policing—is respond. If, however, they get it wrong, of course we should criticise and hold them to account. However, today we should also celebrate that British model of community policing.
	Back before Christmas, I addressed a rally of 500 police officers in Birmingham, together with the national chairman of the Police Federation. As they said, one after the other, not in living memory have any Government lost so quickly the support of the police service in Britain. What those officers expressed, one after the other, was utter dismay. Of course there were concerns about pay and pensions, but there was also dismay about their fellow officers—their friends—being forced out under A19, and them having to work long and hard to compensate. However, those officers also said something else, and one of them put it very powerfully when he said, “Jack, I’ve never felt so downgraded or denigrated by any Government,” because in the promotion of the notion of police commissioners, we have had a constant undermining of the police. That is why our message today is it is time for the Government to listen to what local communities are saying—to think again, to change course, to stop undermining the police. They should back the police, not sack the police.

Neil Parish: I, too, want to quote the phrase “not in living memory”. Not in living memory have any Government inherited such a financial mess as we, this coalition Government, have. We have had to take spending decisions very seriously. Opposition Members have made the point that perhaps we ought to share the responsibility, but the point that should be recognised is that hon. Members all sides would have had to make reductions.
	The Opposition paint us as though we do not care about our police forces, but that is wrong. Devon and Cornwall police force does a very good job with excellent officers, but we know full well that we cannot carry on borrowing £1 in every £4 that we spend. We also know that if we do not have a pay freeze for officers, we will have to reduce their numbers even further, because we would not be able to maintain even the current numbers.
	We have to grow up and say what the coalition Government are saying: yes, police forces do a great job, but we can afford only a certain amount of money. The Labour party makes much of the fact that it spent huge amounts on new headquarters across the country, but they were not paid for there and then. They are being paid for now, and will be in the future, adding to public expenditure. All those points have to be reinforced, because we could not carry on as we had been.
	It is right—my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made this point—that it is down to the chief constables and police authorities in local areas to make reductions where they see fit. It is also down to the chief constables to ensure that front-line policing is maintained. I went out with my local police officers before the general election, and they said that if they make an arrest, they then have to do seven hours of paperwork. I hope that we are tackling that, and if we are not, I am sure that the Minister will tackle it, because there is no doubt that we can reduce bureaucracy and make much better use of police time. We have to accept that there is not the money in the Exchequer or anywhere else, whoever had got into power, because it was all wasted by the previous Government. That is why we have to take these actions. I would much prefer it if, instead of trying to pull apart what we are sensibly trying to do, the Opposition came to this Chamber with some genuinely concrete proposals for how we can move forward together.
	I want to see as many community police officers out on the beat as possible. Indeed, every time the chief constable walked into a police station and found a lot of police officers there, would it not be a good idea—I know that some chief constables are doing this—if he asked why they were there and not out on the beat, policing and catching criminals, which is what we put them there for? There is a great deal more that can be done. There are many great police officers and very good police constables in this country, but we have to find the very best practices to get value for money. In the end, that is what it is about—value for money. The last Government were not about value for money; they were about throwing money around. Some of it went to the right places and some of it to the wrong places. Now we have to pick up the cudgel and make the money we have go further.
	I look forward to the police looking at how they spend their budget. I think there is no need for big front-line cuts. If it is looked at dramatically and properly, we can police ourselves in the future very well. Yes, our constituents and the residents of our towns and villages are concerned about policing and crime statistics; they are always conscious of crime. Whatever side of the House we are on, we all know that. What the Government will do is ensure that they put the money in the right places so that policing carries on and we keep the crime statistics where they are and, hopefully, lower them in future, but at a rate that the country can afford, unlike under the last Government.

Keith Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). Both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) spoke passionately about their local areas. Notwithstanding
	the debate over police numbers, I think we all recognise the huge amount of work being done at a local level. I shall start with a couple of local issues, before moving on to the wider national issues.
	On the situation in Leicestershire, we will sadly see a reduction in the police grant of almost £4 million. When I spoke to Chief Constable Simon Cole this morning, he talked about a very complicated formula that first gave us the money but then took it away because of the dampening down element. He, like every police force, will struggle to meet the ambitions that he and others have to achieve the reductions that the Government have put in place.
	Last Saturday’s events, when the English Defence League marched through Leicester, remind us that police authorities struggle not only because of the reductions but because of events occurring that cannot be predicted. I want to pay tribute to Simon Cole and to Leicester’s mayor, Sir Peter Soulsby, for how they handled that march. The EDL is not welcome in Leicester, but it was given the opportunity to march because we believe in the fundamental principles of freedom of speech. The fact is that the 2,000 police officers who came out on to the streets will cost £800,000. With the possibility of an EDL march in Leeds, the people of Leeds—in the end, it is the taxpayer who will pay—are going to have to pay another large sum. When I intervened on the Minister, I know he said that applications for a special grant can be made, and we will ask him to help us with these costs, because these are not costs of our making; we had to police that demonstration.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington alluded to the recent riots, which reminded me that local police forces have been left with a shortfall. I have figures for the Metropolitan police. I am told that costs under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 will be £198 million, with a further £78 million for operational policing costs; yet the Home Office will pay only £100 million and £52.7 million for the policing costs, so there is a shortfall of about £20 million for the Metropolitan police. I hope that the Minister will give some reassurance to areas such as Birmingham, and to a lesser extent to Leicester, where there were disorders rather than huge riots, but most particularly to London, that help will be forthcoming from the Home Office, as the Prime Minister promised when I put the point to him during his statement just after the riots. He said that the Government would meet the costs of all the extra issues that arose as a result of the riots; I can give the Minister the Hansard extract if necessary.
	I do not want to talk about numbers, as the issue has been well rehearsed eloquently by right hon. and hon. Members of all parties, particularly by the shadow Home Secretary and the Minister. What I want to talk about is procurement, as this is an area in respect of which there will be common cause. IT procurement costs the public £1.2 billion annually. The Minister has told us that the Government are keen to ensure that savings are made. Forces currently have 2,000 separate and bespoke information and communication technology systems that are serviced by 5,000 different members of staff.
	The National Audit Office recently published a report on the use of mobile phones, and I declare an interest in having a BlackBerry, although I am not certain that I use all its features. However, in my conversations with
	the BlackBerry people, they assure me that the BlackBerrys they have given to South Yorkshire police, for example, have resulted in savings of £6 million. This is not rocket science. It was a recommendation of the Select Committee in November 2008 when we said that sufficient funding should be
	“made available as soon as possible to enable all frontline officers to have access to”
	hand-held devices. We talk about waste and procurement; that would have saved a huge amount of money. We still face a situation in which police officers of different police forces are buying these services from different suppliers and are operating different devices.
	I understand that the system in South Yorkshire—I am sure the Minister will be familiar with it—allows the individual police officer to access the police national computer, the warrants database, the electoral roll, command and control, case study records, intelligence briefings, crime tasking, electronic witness statements and shift briefing. That is the sort of thing we need to give our police officers so that they do not spend their time dealing with the bureaucracy of which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton spoke. We are all against bureaucracy; who wants the police to be filling in lots of pieces of paper?
	If we look at new technology—I do not know whether a mobile phone is described as such these days—I believe this is the way for us to go forward. Nineteen forces have mobile phones for fewer than 50% of their officers, and according to the National Audit Office only one in five use it effectively. We give out the equipment, but perhaps do not train officers as effectively as we should.
	I am all for the Minister mandating collaboration. I know that the Home Office and central Government are reluctant to tread on the toes of individual chief constables, but police and crime commissioners are going to be introduced in November, and I hope they will have a leading role to play on procurement. We need to be in a position not to allow all 43 forces to buy their own equipment. The Minister was here for Prime Minister’s questions when my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller) raised the issue that four police authorities were buying Hyundai police cars. Of course, my hon. Friend’s point was about British jobs given that they come from North Korea, but I saw the issue as being primarily one of why all our police cars are not the same; I wondered why, when I went to Kent, there was a different make of police car from those I saw in Leicestershire. This is a no brainer.
	I am pleased with what the permanent secretary at the Home Office said. I was glad when she was not appointed the head of the home civil service—not because I do not think she is capable, as I think she is an extraordinarily capable woman, but because I think the permanent secretary to the Home Office is a big job to do. When she came before the Committee she talked about the so-called Argos catalogue—her choice of shop; I do not know whether Dame Helen goes there regularly. We have been pushing for a long time for a catalogue with nationally agreed prices from which everyone buys. Why the previous Labour Government did not do that, I do not know. My defence is that I was
	the Minister for Europe so I did not have a chance to be in the Home Office. My right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) did a great job as a Minister, but this is a difficult task, as he will tell us.

David Ruffley: The right hon. Gentleman’s Committee has done much under his leadership to raise awareness of the efficiencies that can be delivered by police forces from existing budgets. When he talks about mandating collaboration, is he suggesting that the whole of England and Wales should be divided up and that every force should be mandated to collaborate with a neighbouring force or neighbouring forces?

Keith Vaz: It could be that; of course legislation allows that to happen. The Minister has told us what he did about helicopters with the National Police Air Service. As I remember, South Yorkshire did not want to share its helicopters but the Government said, “You have to share, because a helicopter is quite an expensive piece of equipment.” I do not care where it is done, and I do not think we should hang ourselves on a hook as far as who should say what, but it is common sense to be in a position where we can do this. I think Dame Helen Ghosh gets it, and that is why the Committee will interview her on a regular basis about her commitment to procurement. We want to see not just the kind of savings we have had so far, but much bigger savings.
	Finally, let me speak about police pay and conditions. We all have huge admiration for the police. Tom Winsor will be appearing before the Home Affairs Committee shortly, and I think the Minister needs to take the temperature of the Police Federation and ordinary police officers. He meets them every day and sees them on many occasions, so I cannot lecture him about this, but morale is very low and I think that Mr Winsor has gone too far. We need to be very careful when we deal with police pay and conditions. The previous Labour Government got it wrong—Jacqui Smith got it wrong and so did my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown)—when they did not allow the pay rise that the police ought to have been given when the arbitration committee decided that they should have that pay rise. This time, we should make sure that we carry police officers with us in making the massive changes that the Government are putting in place. That is vital because this is the biggest change to the policing landscape we have seen in this country since Sir Robert Peel’s time.
	We should remunerate the police well, we should not be mean and vindictive to them and we should not get rid of the most experienced officers. That is something we are seeing in this House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington mentioned, where some of our most experienced people are being told they have to go. When I say in this House, I do not mean Members of the House, luckily, as I have been here a long time, but those who guard the Palace of Westminster. We need to value that experience. I hope that the Minister will look again at pay and conditions and will try to bring Mr Winsor under a little bit of control. We are dealing not with railways—I know Mr Winsor was the rail regulator—but with real people in real jobs who protect our constituents. They are the people we lionise in times of crisis, and we should reward them properly for the work they do.

Stephen McCabe: I begin by apologising, Mr Deputy Speaker, for not being here for the whole debate, as I have had duties elsewhere in the House today.
	The problem with the police settlement is that it repeats a pattern that is becoming familiar: there is a sense that a streak of unfairness runs through whatever the Government turn their hand to, and that far from us all being in it together, there are very clear sets of arrangements that favour some at the expense of others. Let me take the example of the Met, which we all accept faces enormous pressures. It is about to be given £90 million of additional funding, which is enough to recruit about 1,000 additional officers, to help with its extra responsibilities next year. I do not deny that the Met will have extra responsibilities, but neither has it escaped my attention, or the attention of a number of my constituents, that the Conservative party and Boris Johnson have an election battle to face this year. That might well be influencing some of these decisions.
	I would like the Minister to tell me why we in the west midlands do not need extra money next year. We have a visit from the Queen as part of the diamond jubilee, which will require additional policing, and we have Jamaican independence day. There is a significant Jamaican population across the west midlands and many events are planned that will require policing. In Birmingham there will be an all-day market in the city centre, which will require additional policing. Birmingham is to host the Jamaican and United States Olympic athletics teams, and that will require additional security and policing. West Midlands police are engaged in the advance policing for Euro 2012, and the further England progresses in the tournament, the greater will be their commitment.
	Why are we in the west midlands not entitled to some additional funding for those commitments when the Met’s position has been recognised and provided for? Why should I be told that I am wrong to draw a comparison with what is happening in the context of the London mayoral election? I ask those questions because they are the questions that my constituents are asking me. They tell me that it is not fair. They do not think that we are all in it together; they think that they have been singled out for worse treatment than the Government are prepared to give the Met. The Minister knows perfectly well—because a delegation of west midlands Members of Parliament went to see him last year—that the West Midlands force is underfunded, and that if the police formula were applied fairly, we would receive a substantially larger grant than we are receiving now.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) pointed out earlier, there is a recruitment freeze in the west midlands. According to the latest estimate, by 2015 we shall have lost about 2,764 jobs, which is 450 more than the Minister would have been aware of at the time of the original projections. That means the loss of about 1,165 officers, 122 police community support officers and 1,477 ancillary staff. By March 2012, there will have been 88 compulsory redundancies. It is simply not true that that is not a problem, or that the situation can be easily managed. It is certainly not true that the West Midlands police authority and the chief constable have not been trying to deal with the problem. They have cut £40 million
	from their budget, they will cut a further £38 million from it next year, and they will cut £126 million over the four-year period.
	I do not know how many major organisations policing an area of the size that the West Midlands authority is required to police could easily cut £126 million from their budgets over a four-year period without making any impact on the service that they provide, but I should be interested to hear from any such organisation. What I do know is that 80% of the police budget is made up of pay, and that if cuts on this scale must be made, jobs will inevitably be cut. That is obvious to most people. The fact that a Prime Minister can stand here and pretend that there is an increase in policing on our streets when everyone’s experience is to the contrary beggars belief.
	Moreover—we have put this to the Minister repeatedly—because the cuts are front-loaded, they will limit the capacity for efficiency gains and business transformation. Those things could be achieved, and, indeed, West Midlands police are working towards achieving them. As far as I am aware, there is no sense that people in the west midlands do not want change, but some change takes time, especially if it is intended to deliver efficiency gains, and this change cannot be achieved within the time scale that the Minister is forcing on those people.
	It is also not true that people in the west midlands do not accept that there is an argument for cuts. Even the chairman of the West Midlands Police Federation has stated clearly that, while recognising that 12% cuts will pose a challenge, he does not believe that they will have an immediate impact on front-line policing. However, he knows from experience and from his contact with his members—real police officers on the ground—that 20% cuts will pose an enormous challenge, and that it will not be possible to make them without cutting front-line services.
	We need a bit more fairness in the way the money is shared around. If there are going to be cuts, then we should all be in this together, and the people of the west midlands have as much entitlement to policing and recognition of the policing challenges facing them as do the people living in the Met area. The Minister must look again at the impact on the front line in Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands. The transformations that he says he wants could be effected if he were to permit more time and space for the job to be done properly.
	The Select Committee on Home Affairs has been conducting an inquiry into the private investigator business. It is unregulated, and it is clear that as the police are forced to withdraw from certain areas of life, the private sector will move in. That could make the situation worse, not better.
	Has the Minister had a chance to look at the allegations coming out of Birmingham that the private sector has withdrawn from running Birmingham prison and has handed it over to two major gangs who have transferred their business from the streets of Birmingham to the prison’s cell blocks and landings? The people of the west midlands are certainly not asking for that kind of unregulated private sector. They are not against change, but they want change that is managed, fair and reasonable, and that will deliver security and safety. We will not get
	it at this pace and with this level of cuts, and with unfair advantages being given to the Met because other people have other issues on their minds.

David Hanson: I am glad that we have had this debate. As there are merely two minutes for each Front-Bench spokesman to respond, I will just reiterate the key points that have been made.
	We are calling for the Government to reopen the Home Office funding settlement for police forces across England and Wales. As has been made clear in the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Tony Lloyd), my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), we do not believe that this settlement is sufficient to meet the needs of policing in the 21st century. Speaking from the Government Benches, the hon. Members for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) hold a different view, which I respect but disagree with.
	The Labour party supports reductions of 12%, which HMIC recognises as deliverable. We are not against collaboration on voluntary mergers, overtime reductions and procurement of cars, uniforms, IT and air support, nor are we against deployment changes or the paperwork challenge. What we are against are the Government’s proposed cuts, which will lead to 16,000 police officer posts being lost and take some £700 million out of next year’s policing budget for England and Wales—and it has been signalled that there will be still further cuts in future years. The Minister knows that that will have a dramatic impact; no amount of smoke and mirrors will hide the fact that there will be a real and deep cut in the policing grant in England and Wales.
	The Minister need not listen to me; I am a Labour politician, after all—the former Minister now supporting my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary. However, he should listen to the chief constable of Kent, who says:
	“The cuts, if they are 20%, will take us back to 2001 so that’s quite a significant drawback into police numbers.”
	The Minister should listen to the chief constable of Manchester who said that the current financial year is
	“the most difficult financial year for policing in living memory.”
	The Minister should listen to the chief constable of Gloucestershire who said:
	“Here in Gloucestershire we are potentially in the middle of the perfect storm”,
	and added that it takes
	“us to a metaphorical cliff-edge more quickly than others.”
	The Minister should also listen to the chief constable of Dyfed Powys, who says that
	“nobody should be under any illusions, we still have to cut costs significantly but at least the 5% increase in the precept would mean our situation won’t get any worse.”
	When Labour left office, police numbers were at record levels—there were 16,500 more officers than in 1997 and there were also 16,000 new PCSOs—and
	crime fell by 43% under Labour. The Government settlement takes £700 million out of policing. This House should oppose it. The Opposition will certainly do so.

Nick Herbert: I congratulate the shadow Minister on his two-minute speech. I am sorry that the shadow Home Secretary did not allow him to do more and lead the debate, as has been the tradition in this place.
	I strongly agree with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), about the opportunity in respect of procurement. Last year, we put in place the first mandatory framework, covering some key services, including police cars, body armour and a wide range of commodity IT hardware and software. This will ensure that all forces use the specified frameworks—the right hon. Gentleman’s “shopping list”—so the full potential for savings in these categories, £27 million, can be achieved by 2014-15. We are consulting on going further to specify frameworks used by the service when buying further equipment, including vehicle light bars, digital interviewing equipment, translation services, mobile telephony and some e-consultancy. Savings of £34 million so far are projected to rise to £70 million by the end of this financial year, rising, as I said, to at least £200 million by 2014-15.
	That is a really good example of what can be achieved, and it is noticeable that, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Leicester East, no Opposition Member talked about any of those issues. It was my hon. Friends who raised deployment issues—how well resources can be spent—and who talked about the things forces can do to adjust to the lower spending and to continue to deliver a high-quality service. Opposition Front Benchers continue to make absolutely no mention of these issues. We know now that they support the police arbitration tribunal report, the pay freeze, the overtime measures and the cuts they are criticising, but they have nothing to say about procurement, outsourcing and whether it is right to bring performance up to the standard of the best. Their mantra is—to use the shadow Minister’s words—to call on us to reopen the settlement. It is the same old story: calling on us to spend more money, and that is exactly what got the country into this mess in the first place.
	Question put,
	The House proceeded to a  Division .

Greg Knight: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether you are aware of the fact, but one of the lifts on the Committee corridor is not working and that is leading to a long queue of Members seeking to arrive in the Lobby. I wonder whether you would consider extending the time available for this Division.

Nigel Evans: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I certainly will take that into account before I ask for the doors to be locked. I appreciate that not every Member is as athletic as he is. He was able to sprint his way to the Chamber, but I will make allowances for the less athletic.
	The House having divided:

Ayes 298, Noes 228.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) for 2012-13 (HC 1797), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.

Local Government Finance

Grant Shapps: I beg to move,
	That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2012-13, which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
	That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2012-13 (HC 1801), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
	Over recent weeks my colleagues and I have had many conversations with local government. We have spoken to individual authorities, the Local Government Association, London Councils and other representatives. They bring a degree of realism about public finances which is sometimes absent from the House. They know that local authorities account for more than a quarter of total Government spending, and that tackling the record deficit is the responsible thing to do. They know that this helps families as well.
	In these tough times, as a proportion of total income, interest payments for mortgages are currently at their lowest since records began. A Labour Government would have meant more expensive mortgages, failing to tackle the deficit—[Hon. Members: “No, it would not.”] Yes, it would, because failing to tackle the deficit would have meant bigger spending cuts and higher taxes. One has only to look at Italy and Greece to see that their borrowing costs have rocketed. They are cutting local government spending, proportionally, far faster and far more than we have had to do here in Britain. Let us look at the Republic of Ireland, which has had to introduce a new property tax to try to plug the gap. The reckless calls from the Opposition to spend more money, have higher taxes and ignore the cuts would lead us to very difficult times for families across this country.
	Councils have come to discussions with a positive and constructive attitude, which does them great credit. As we have seen, councils are making a huge effort to make the money that is available go further. They have innovated, done things differently, reformed and rethought their services. For example, Lichfield and Tamworth district councils are now sharing their waste collection services. Councils have tried to cut out every instance of duplication. For example, Lincolnshire is bringing county and district data together so that people have to tell councils only once when they want to get something done.
	Councils have thrown open their doors to shine a spotlight on waste and drive it out. All councils across England have chosen to publish online their expenditure over £500—all councils except for one sorry exception, Labour Nottingham city council. It is disappointing that Opposition Front Benchers still support the continued arrogant and outrageous secrecy against the residents of Nottingham city, who deserve to see how their money is spent. [ Interruption. ] They laugh about it, but the public have a right to see how their cash is spent. If the Labour party had some mettle, it would stand up to its local authorities that are refusing to publish that information. My Department has published online every single penny of Government procurement card spending, which has helped cut such spending by three quarters.

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman talks about transparency, and Nottingham city council should indeed publish that information, but does not he understand why local government gets a little cross when he and his colleagues lecture everyone on transparency but do not apply it to information on their ministerial hospitality and gifts? Can he explain why the latest such information published on his Department’s website, which I visited yesterday, is for eight months ago, even though it is meant to be published every three months?

Grant Shapps: First, the whole House will have noted that for the first time, as far as I am aware, a Labour Front Bencher has deplored Nottingham city council’s failure to publish its information transparently. Secondly, it is absolutely right to say that we have decided to publish everything as openly as possible, including not only all expenditure over £500, but every penny of expenditure under £500. The next set is about to be released, as publication is on a six-monthly timetable.
	Many councils have made excellent progress in saving cash before cutting services, but there is more to do. Last year councils in England spent £61 billion on procurement, but billions more could be saved by tackling purchasing fraud, stopping duplicated payment, improving bulk buying and joint working, using electronic auctions, negotiating harder and opening up contracts to small and medium-sized firms by cutting tendering red tape. Councils can do more for less, and part of the Government’s plan is to help them do that, not by tinkering and controlling, but by giving them certainty about what is around the corner. That brings me to the two-year settlement.

Dave Watts: The right hon. Gentleman is probably the 15th Housing Minister, from all parties, who has stood at the Dispatch Box and called for more efficiency. No one is arguing that we cannot get more efficiency out of any organisation, but is not what he is saying a smokescreen for the fact that he is cutting millions of pounds from some of the poorest communities in Britain?

Grant Shapps: I am probably the first Housing and Local Government Minister in some time who has been able to discuss the matter at the Dispatch Box for two years running because, unlike the previous Administration, we have not been reshuffled every two minutes. I must say that I have just read out a long list of things councils could do, from stopping purchasing fraud and duplicated payments to improving bulk buying and joint working. Councils have begun to do that, and to do it well, and we have seen some impressive results over the past year.

Anne Main: On the subject of purchasing orders, does my right hon. Friend agree that Hertfordshire county council could look at not going forward with the PFI scheme that might see a large incinerator landed on the border between his constituency and mine, as they are very poor value for money?

Grant Shapps: I am extraordinarily grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that sensitive local issue, which she will understand I cannot comment on as a Minister with responsibility for planning. It is true that councils that have used procurement wisely, for example through
	online procurement, competitive working, ensuring that they follow through on getting a purchase order, which is pretty basic, and paying only when they can prove that the goods have been delivered, have saved millions of pounds.

John Redwood: Will the Minister confirm that next year he proposes absolutely no decline in aggregate Exchequer finance, which is going to be about level, and a £1 billion increase in total grants and special grants to local authorities? The Opposition are rather overdoing the gloom.

Grant Shapps: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to pre-empt a later section of this message, which is that the reduction in local government spending power is now coming down to 3.3%. Last year it was 4.4%, so it is true, and it was pointed out many times, that the reductions were front-loaded in order to allow local authorities to adjust properly.

Dave Watts: Will the Minister give way?

Grant Shapps: I will in a moment.
	In this Chamber last year there was an awful lot of noise and heat on the question of why we were cutting up-front in order to ensure that the changes took place, but a year later we see that the vast majority of authorities have managed the process incredibly well. The National Audit Office and others recognise that, and we were right to ensure that we made those cuts up-front.

Brandon Lewis: Does the Minister agree that we should do all that we can to dispel the myth, put about by the Opposition, regarding deprived areas? Great Yarmouth includes some of the most deprived areas in the country, but its borough council has dealt with the changes and cuts, which have come through thanks to the previous Government’s financial mess, without changing or losing any front-line services. Indeed, it is going further now and looking at tripartite deals on shared services in order to give residents the best deal and to protect front-line services.

Grant Shapps: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right to point out that we went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the most vulnerable areas and councils, in particular, were protected.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Grant Shapps: Before we have a barrage of interventions, let me explain to Opposition Members how we did so.
	For a start, my hon. Friend’s local council had an 8.8% reduction in spending power, which was the highest of any authority represented in the House, yet he made the comments that he did. We kept the floors and damping in place, we introduced the transition fund, which continues this year, and we did something that no Government of any size or colour had ever done: we increased the needs index from 73% to 83% in the formula grants.

Kevan Jones: rose —

Grant Shapps: Perhaps when I take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, he will tell us why he did not encourage his Government to increase the needs formula when they were in power.

Kevan Jones: Why is Hartlepool, in the north-east of England, facing a 5.7% reduction in spending per dwelling and paying 0.2%—£5 a dwelling—into the damping fund, while Wokingham’s spending per dwelling is being cut by 1.5%? That surely cannot be fair when we compare the needs of Hartlepool with those of Wokingham.

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman’s own local authority had a reduction of 3.2% this year—[ Interruption. ]His authority had a reduction of 3.2%, which off the top of my head is slightly less than my local authority’s. Different authorities will experience different reductions. We just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), whose local authority had an 8.8% reduction, yet he sent the very clear message to the House that, because his authority has made some of the right moves, it has been able to cope with the changes.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Grant Shapps: I will just make a little progress.
	In reality, money is incredibly short, and we know the impact of not taking action: it is called a credit downgrading, which is what France, Italy, Greece, Ireland and so many other countries have seen. It is as if the entire Opposition are in denial about the mess that this country is in and, in particular, about how we got into it in the first place, which was by continuing to spend money that we did not have.
	On the questions that have been raised fairly about why the amounts are different in this district and that district, the answer is that in different areas funding is provided in different ways. In some parts of the country, there is much less reliance on Government funding. If it means that in a particular area more funding is collected through council tax or through services that the council provides and charges for, and less through the amount from central Government, then of course, in tough times when central Government have less money to pay across, it stands to reason that the proportion of spending power may seem different in an area that is entirely or much more dependent on Government spending. The real question to be answered about the settlement is whether we have gone out of our way to ensure that areas that receive more of their funding from the Government purse are better protected. The answer is always yes, because we moved the needs index and kept the transition funds, and because of several other moves.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Grant Shapps: I have given way a few times; I will make a little progress and then take further interventions.
	In December 2010, we set out a two-year settlement, and it turns out that there is virtually no difference at all between the settlement that we are discussing today and the one that we set out back then. Despite the challenges, councils have expressed their gratitude for the stability that a two-year settlement provided. I am delighted that we were able to provide that sense of stability.
	As with last year, we sought to deliver a fair, sustainable and progressive settlement. As we have just discussed, we have again focused resources on the most vulnerable communities, giving more weight to the level of need, from 73% to 83% within each council, and less weight to the per capita distribution.

Derek Twigg: rose—

Grant Shapps: When I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I hope very much that he will have listened to the passage that I have just read out, because I am sure that it will answer his question about need. We will give it a try.

Derek Twigg: My borough of Halton is the 19th worst hit of any authority in the country and it is among the top 30 most deprived authorities. How is that fair? Furthermore, why is the cut in the Chancellor’s borough of Cheshire East less than half that of Halton?

Grant Shapps: I see many former local government Ministers in the Chamber, including one or two on the Opposition Benches. They are well aware of a phenomenon that takes place after every provisional local government finance settlement: each authority comes in to explain why it is the worst affected in the country. That reality brings a wry smile to those who have done this job before.
	To answer the hon. Gentleman’s point, I should say that his authority receives a 3.9% reduction in spending power. That is a touch over the average of 3.3% for this year, but it is by no means impossible and nowhere near the 8.8% cut that one or two authorities, including that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth, are experiencing. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman, before he intervened not having listened to a word that was said, we have again given more weight to levels of need in each council and less weight—this is critical—to per capita distribution. I rather think that that goes to the exact point that the hon. Gentleman asked about.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Grant Shapps: I shall take interventions from those who have not yet had a chance to intervene. I give way to the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith).

Angela Smith: On the basis of what the Minister has said, how is it that the 30th most deprived borough in the country gets an above-average reduction in spending?

Grant Shapps: I explained that at some length about five minutes ago, but I shall cover it again. If an area is more dependent on money coming from a particular source, and that source is the national Government, even when we make incredible efforts to keep down the reductions it is always possible for people from that area to stand up and say, “Ah, we have a bigger reduction in spending power.” That is because more of the area’s money comes from the public purse rather than being raised locally from local taxpayers.
	I would have thought that Opposition Members would understand that fairly straightforward calculation. They have never told us whether they agree that we should
	have increased the needs index from 73% to 83% and whether they would have put in transition funding of £96 million, I think, last year, and a further £20 million this year, to make sure that not a single area has had to have a reduction of more than 8.8% this or last year.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Grant Shapps: I will take two more interventions and then make a little progress. I give way to the Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee.

Clive Betts: Let us get this absolutely right. Despite his justifications about the details, the Minister seems to be saying that, in the end, the authorities with the greatest needs tend to be those with the greatest amount of Government grant; that the biggest amount of their spending therefore comes from the grant; and that those authorities will therefore have the biggest cuts to their spending power. Is that what he is saying to us?

Grant Shapps: The Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee knows the issue better than that. He is familiar with the numbers involved because, apart from anything else, his Committee has spent a lot of time looking into the matter. For the sake of others in the House who might be getting carried away with his argument, perhaps it is worth selecting some figures. Hackney, for example, a relatively deprived area, receives £3,050 per household. Windsor and Maidenhead, perhaps thought of as a more leafy area, receives about half that amount at £1,537—a demonstration if ever there were one that more deprived areas receive a lot more money than less deprived areas.

James Morris: It is important to set this debate in a broader context. At a time when local government has to make significant reductions, the Government have given local authorities significant powers in the Localism Act 2011, through a general power of competence, to take decisions locally and collaborate with other local authorities to reduce expenditure. Furthermore, the Local Government Finance Bill will allow local authorities to retain part of the business rate, which will help in this difficult settlement at a difficult time.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. While he tries to expand his argument to cover measures such as the un-ring-fencing of some £7 billion of expenditure each year, it is revealing that the Labour party does not want to acknowledge that we are living in tough times. They do not acknowledge that we have done a series of things, including keeping councils in four different bands, each with a different floor level, and ensuring that the most dependent areas see their funding fall by proportionately less overall.

Helen Jones: The Minister’s argument totally ignores the differences between council tax bases in different authorities, and the amounts that authorities can raise from a similar rise in council tax. On business rates, he is ignoring the fact that all predictions show that even if top-ups and tariffs are uprated by the retail prices index, the gap between the wealthiest local authorities and the poorest will grow under the Government’s plans.

Grant Shapps: I will come on to cover the more detailed points about business rates. I note, however, that the hon. Lady did not mention that her own authority has suffered only a 3.1% reduction in spending power, which is below the national average.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Grant Shapps: I want to make a little progress so I will push on and then take further interventions.
	I have already mentioned that an authority such as Hackney receives more than £3,000 per household while those such as Windsor and Maidenhead receive nearer to £1,500. Last year we said that no council should expect a reduction in spending power of more than 8.8%, and I am pleased to say that we have been able to stick to that commitment for the second year running. I also mentioned the £20 million transitional grant, which means that the average reduction in spending power is 3.4%—just a little higher than the figure for the authority of the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), which she failed to mention when she intervened.
	This settlement delivers on promises already made. It has been recognised across the House and throughout the ages that the revenue grant system needs to change. The previous Government recognised that when in power. Indeed, there were many false dawns under the previous Administration. They set up local government Green Papers and White Papers to look into the issue, and the balance of funding review—remember that? They also set up the Lyons inquiry. What did they do with those reviews? Precisely nothing. They continued with exactly the same system that we are arguing about today, and which, for all sorts of reasons, is far too complex and difficult to interpret or make much sense of.

John Redwood: I am sure we all welcome the £1 billion extra for schools and education, but will the Minister explain why there will be a 35% increase in environmental special grants? That looks generous given the circumstances.

Grant Shapps: I thank my right hon. Friend. One thing that every Local Government Minister knows is that there will always be a reason, a cause, a plea or a demand for expenditure to go into one area rather than another—not just geographic areas but subject matters. He tempts me down a slightly different route, but that illustrates the extent to which the current formula is bust. It is broken, and it was recognised previously that it needed to change, but nothing happened to allow that.
	Rather than talking, the coalition is delivering fundamental reform of the local government finance system through the Local Government Finance Bill, which includes our proposals to repatriate business rates—a reform that will create better incentives for councils to drive growth, promote local enterprise and deliver local jobs. Councils will be in the driving seat to expand their local economy. That reform is about not just redistributing the proceeds of growth but creating the conditions to boost growth overall. It is about not just cutting up the cake differently, which is essentially the argument that we are having today, but making a bigger cake in the first place.

Steve Rotheram: The right hon. Gentleman tries to justify the cuts with an argument about fairness, but I am afraid that people who have seen the heat map that has been produced will see right through his smoke and mirrors. The map showing the impact of the cuts reveals that all but two of the 20 worst-hit councils are in the most deprived 20% of councils in England.

Grant Shapps: I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to research that I think is in the Library, showing that the largest decreases in formula grant in the past year, 2011-12, were in the south-east. The decreases were generally smaller for the most deprived areas and larger for less deprived ones. He can look that research up for himself, along with an interesting recent report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which stated that local authorities were protecting the most vulnerable and making sensible decisions about services.
	The picture that the hon. Gentleman paints is inaccurate and ignores the central fact that if we do not take measures to reduce our deficit, we will end up in trouble. Given that local authorities spend a quarter of all Government money, if we do not reduce our deficit they will end up bust. It seems incredible that we have not so far heard a single intervention from an Opposition Member to explain how the Opposition would deal with the reductions that are certainly required but that they never want to face.
	Meanwhile, the Localism Act 2011 has put new powers in the hands of local taxpayers. They now have the right to call local referendums if excessive council tax increases are proposed. If any authority decides to increase its council tax by more than a certain level, which we are separately inviting the House to approve, it will need the say-so of its local electorate, which is absolutely right. In most cases in which a council wants to increase council tax by more than 3.5%, local people will have the chance to vote. Let the people decide—that is what localism is all about.

Gavin Williamson: In my area, Tory-run South Staffordshire council is keeping the council tax increase at 0%, and so is Staffordshire county council. The situation is not the same with many neighbouring Labour-run local authorities. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it comes down to political will? Some councils want low council tax, and others do not care about their constituents.

Grant Shapps: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that where there is a will, there is a way. Where there is transparency, the sharing of services and smarter procurement, there is a way. Not a single authority is suffering a reduction of more than 8.8%, and the average is 3.3%. There is no reason for them to be increasing council tax.

John Healey: Can the Secretary of State confirm that a statement put out by his spokesman last night for the Local Government Chronicle is wrong? It states:
	“For a local authority, a council tax referendum is triggered only if its basic amount of council tax increases by more than 3.5%”.
	Will he confirm that the Localism Act, which he has just cited, mentions the “relevant” basic amount of council tax, which excludes levies? That means that local authorities with large levies are at a disadvantage in the system and are likely to face a referendum trigger amounting to significantly less than a 3.5% increase.

Grant Shapps: The right hon. Gentleman is my predecessor and has tremendous expertise and knowledge in this subject. I saw his letter to the Secretary of State in which he raises exactly that concern, but I must tell him that this once, unusually, he has got his facts in a twist—he has got them the wrong way round. It is the case that the referendum is triggered on the precepting authority’s increase only, not by taking into account the addition of levies from other organisations such as police and fire authorities. I hope that satisfies him. In fact, there should be a letter back in his office that explains in some detail precisely how that operates.

John Healey: rose —

Grant Shapps: I would rather not continue the dispute on the ballot point, if only because we will descend into incredible amounts of detail. The right hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong, and I have written him a three-page letter detailing exactly why. He is welcome to come back to me, but I fear that the complexity of his argument—

John Healey: rose —

Grant Shapps: I will give him one more try.

John Healey: The Minister’s letter is in fact a one-page letter. It confirms that the statement made by his spokesman in last night’s Local Government Chronicle is wrong in fact because it is not consistent with the terms of the Localism Act 2011, which the Minister cites as the basis for the council tax referendum.

Grant Shapps: I have not seen the Local Government Chronicle, but I have seen the letter. It was certainly more than a page when I signed it. Perhaps it was printed in a very small font or e-mailed in a strange way. It was a detailed letter that makes the point absolutely clearly, but I want to reiterate the point now so that no Member leaves the Chamber uncertain—there is no uncertainty.
	The referendum is triggered when an increase of more than 3.5%, brought about by the principal billing authority, takes place. That is based, therefore, on a district, county or borough implementing an increase of more than 3.5%. It does not include the fact that a fire or police authority, or a parish, might decide to increase its amount by more. They are not covered by the trigger point. As I have said, I have gone into quite considerable detail and I want to make sure that the House is clear that the principle is based on those authorities and those authorities only.

John Healey: Will the Minister give way?

Grant Shapps: I would like to make a little progress.
	I do not think there is any need for council tax increases or referendums at all this year. While council tax more than doubled under the previous Government, and although a Labour Government would have hiked council taxes even more in a fourth term, this—

John Healey: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has tried to help the House and said he wanted to be clear, but he has just made the fundamental mistake, which I think he needs to correct, of citing precepts and not levies in the examples he gave. He therefore underlines rather than undermines my point.

Nigel Evans: The right hon. Gentleman has got his point across.

Grant Shapps: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Most people out there would be most interested not in whether a council tax referendum triggers at 3.5% or 3.51%, or whether that includes the £20 charged by the parish council, although that is interesting and I hold by everything I have said at the Dispatch Box so far. Most people in the country would be most interested in the fact that council tax doubled under the previous Administration. If Labour Members had their way, they would have council tax going up even further. People might ask how we know that for certain. The simple answer is that they have not supported this year’s or last year’s council tax freeze. Typically, the council tax freeze in the last year saved the average family at band D £72, and we are providing a further £675 million of funding this year to councils to freeze their bills yet again.

Andrew Gwynne: rose —

Bill Esterson: rose —

Grant Shapps: I will give way in a moment, but I wanted to make the point that Labour Members have opposed £675 million to keep council tax bills down this year. That will give hard-working families a helping hand. That is real help now, as someone once said from this Dispatch Box.

Bill Esterson: rose —

Andrew Gwynne: rose —

Grant Shapps: I will give way to an hon. Member who has not intervened previously.

Andrew Gwynne: I am very grateful to the Minister. In previous years, the Government’s council tax freeze moneys were paid as part of the funding formula, but this year, there is a one-off payment. Does that mean that councils such as Tameside that decide to freeze council tax in the forthcoming year will have difficult decisions to make the following year?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out that this is a one-year payment. I make no bones about that. These are incredibly difficult times.

Dave Watts: Smokescreen.

Grant Shapps: There is no smokescreen. I have just said that this is a one-year payment. To argue that £675 million is meaningless and does nothing for people across the country is to live in a completely different world from most people out there who are struggling and delighted at the freeze.
	The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) is right about the technicalities. Significant changes to the council tax system are coming down the line for next year. Those changes, which include the localisation of business rates, provide enormous opportunities to authorities across the country, including his own, to write their own destiny when it comes to their economic future. It will cease to be based on who can prove the greatest levels of deprivation, and instead switch, rightly, to who can bring more jobs to an area, who can make their area a more business-friendly place to operate in, and who can build more homes under the new homes bonus. I make no bones about that point, and I am pleased to say that more than half of councils have already signed up to the council tax freeze.

Dave Watts: Will the Minister give way?

Grant Shapps: I am disappointed, however, that a small minority of town halls, it appears, plan to reject the money, and some are going to the very limit of what they can raise without triggering a vote.

Heidi Alexander: The Minister makes great play of the council tax freeze, but does he accept that the Government’s 10% reduction in council tax benefit will actually result in a council tax increase for some of the poorest people in the country?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Lady seeks to bring us on to a completely different area of local financing, but we can cover some of that. The council tax benefit localisation is not a key part of the settlement today, but I am happy to talk about it.

Dave Watts: Will the Minister give way?

Grant Shapps: This measure will ensure that local authorities have a stake in the economic well-being of people in their communities—the person living behind the door at No. 22 or wherever—and in whether they can get back into work and off welfare, for example. It is absolutely right to localise council tax benefit, simply because it gives the local authority a stake in helping that person back to work. At the moment, the money goes directly from the centre to the individual, and the local authority does not play a part. In the same way, the local authority currently has no stake in attracting more businesses to an area or in building more homes.

Helen Jones: Will the Minister admit that 80% of economic development is down not to what local authorities do but to what the Government do—or, in this case, what they do not do. He is making the mistake, again, of assuming that people receiving council tax benefit are all out of work. The people who will be hardest hit by his scheme will be poor families in work.

Grant Shapps: First, I think that 80% of business development comes from businesses, not from government, whether local or central, but we might just have a
	different view about that. Secondly, it is hard to take historical figures, such as the hon. Lady’s 80% figure, and project them forward, simply because we do not know what will happen. We have created in this country a local government finance system entirely divorced from economic realities. Frankly, under the current system, it has made no difference to councils whether businesses have survived or thrived in their local areas. That is wrong, and that is what we will turn around. It is absolutely right to do that.

Dave Watts: Will the Minister give way?

Grant Shapps: I am keen for other Members to get in, but before he explodes, I will give way one last time to the hon. Gentleman.

Dave Watts: The Minister wants to ensure that everyone understands the ramifications of his proposal, so will he admit that if a council accepts the freeze, the following year, the year after that and the year after that, its base will be eroded, which means that it will be worse off for having taken the freeze?

Grant Shapps: The hon. Gentleman asks a timely question, so I am grateful for his intervention. The answer is that I cannot confirm that, as we have not described from where we will take the base. It is therefore a mistake for local authorities, based on today, to think that if they ramp up their council tax, that will automatically be taken into account on transition to the new system. We have not made a decision or an announcement on that, so if councils want to go ahead and take the risk, they should first listen to the warning from this Dispatch Box. With such a big change in the way that local government finance operates coming down the line in 2013, they cannot, right now, factor in their base by putting up council tax. I cannot confirm that today, and they should think not once, not twice, but three times before putting up council tax this year.
	I have to say that there are some interesting things going on out there. Some councils are going to the very limit of how much they can raise council tax by without triggering a referendum. Isn’t it surprising? I have seen increases of 3.4%, 3.49% and 3.5%—on the nose—but there they stop. Doubtless those councils will say that those figures have been reached after expert, high-minded advice from apolitical finance directors and that they have been determined as the absolute minimum required to maintain vital services. What a coincidence that such rigorous objectivity comes up with such precise numbers, rather than 3.51%, 3.52% or 3.6%. Funny that—a referendum would be triggered if it did come up with those figures. It is almost as if those councils do not think that a bigger council tax rise would win the support of their local voters.
	Then it struck me. Those councils have been inspired by the bicentenary, as so many of us have: they have been reading their Dickens. And which character have they taken as their role model, dipping into their residents’ pockets with a twinkle in the eye? I think we all recognise an Artful Dodger when we see one, and if those councils will not give people a say now, woe betide them at the next local elections.
	As I have mentioned, we are not proposing this year to impose a particular level for town and parish councils for a referendum. However, we are concerned at reports that some councils—just a few in the sector, but none the less enough to trigger concerns—are proposing large increases. As with the point about the base, as we move to the new system, we will seriously consider whether to make excessive parish increases part of referendums in future.

John Healey: On the new system that will be introduced under the Local Government Finance Bill, will the Minister confirm that it is a carry-over Bill and that page 640 of “Erskine May”—which says that
	“the procedure should be used in respect of bills which had not yet left the first House”—
	therefore applies? With the Government having forced the Bill through Committee of the whole House in three days, which means that outside organisations cannot give evidence and have not had time to get to grips with the Bill, will the Minister confirm that “Erskine May” means that this House will not have the Report stage of the Bill until after the Queen’s Speech?

Grant Shapps: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that every Opposition normally spend their time arguing that Bills should not be tucked away in some Committee Room, up on the lower or upper corridor, but debated on the Floor of the House. That means that every Member of the House has the opportunity to take part in the debate and that nobody is excluded. I would have thought that that was a thoroughly good thing, so I am proud that we took such important business in Committee on the Floor of the House. It genuinely gave the opportunity to Members, as the people’s representatives, to come and make their points, and it is a good approach that should be followed.
	Just as we did last year, we have pushed the system as far as we can to reach a settlement that is sustainable, that is fair and progressive, and that allows councils to freeze their council tax.

Clive Betts: Will the Minister give way?

Grant Shapps: I hope all hon. Members would agree that I have been more than generous with interventions. I am keen for others to be able to speak.
	We will continue to work closely with councils to give them the freedom, the tools and the support that they need to get every penny of value out to the taxpayer. I believe that this is a local government settlement that will be welcomed around the country.

Hilary Benn: I welcome this opportunity to debate local government finance. I am conscious that we are entering a world of strange language—gearing and damping, floors and ceilings—and the Minister did not disappoint. I was slightly surprised, however, to hear so much about Greece and Italy, Ireland and France. Unless I am very much mistaken, when I last checked, those countries were not part of the local government funding settlement, but I stand to be corrected.
	Local authorities provide services on which we all rely, and what they do has a huge effect on the quality of life of the citizens we represent and on the neighbourhoods in which they live. They are now having to deal, as every Member knows, with the biggest cut in resources that we have ever seen in our political lifetime. Councils have been forced to absorb a reduction in formula grant of almost 19.3% over the two years of the spending review. The cuts have been front-loaded. What that means, as the Local Government Association has pointed out, is that local government has borne the brunt of the reductions in the spending review rather than the burden being shared equally with other parts of Government.
	Having heard the Minister’s contribution, it seems that he is still living on a completely different planet from the one on which communities and their councils have to exist. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirms, the total cuts to local government spending will outpace those of the public sector as a whole up to 2014-15.

John Redwood: We are discussing £72 billion in aggregate Exchequer finance for this year and next year, which is £1,200 for every man, woman and child in the country. That has to be taken off them in taxes in order to pay to local government. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much more his party would like us to take off every man, woman and child in the country to make that Exchequer finance bigger?

Hilary Benn: My response to the right hon. Gentleman is that we would not cut so far and so fast, as he knows. We would certainly not have distributed the cuts in the fundamentally unfair way that this Government have done.

Dave Watts: Government Members suggest that just one or two deprived councils are being hit the hardest, but the document by SIGOMA—the special interest group of municipal authorities—shows that the vast majority, if not all, of the most deprived authorities are being hit the worst, while those in the most affluent areas, often represented by Conservative Members, are in some cases receiving more grant.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he anticipates some of the figures I am going to give to the House.
	First, however, it is important to note that the Secretary of State lost out to the Treasury—assuming, of course, that he tried to protect local councils in the first place, and there many who would doubt whether he put up much of a fight, given the glee with which he regularly attacks councils for what they do. The consequences of all this are: one, that local government has to deal with cuts that are unfairly distributed; two, that residents are having to come face to face with the consequences of those cuts, as services they rely on change or go; and, three, looking to next year, that councils face nothing but uncertainty about their future financial position. Let me deal with each of those in turn.
	Despite the Secretary of State’s claim that what he has done is fair and sustainable, the House knows that the 10% most deprived upper-tier authorities are facing a reduction in their spending power that is nearly four times greater than that faced by the 10% least deprived
	authorities. That is why the Minister’s argument falls at the very first hurdle. It is also undermined by his Department’s figures.
	Newcastle city council has done us all a very great service by laying out the facts. It looked at data taken from the Department for Communities and Local Government showing the cuts in 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13, taking account of transition and council tax freeze grants and the provisional new homes bonus allocations. What do the figures show when all that is taken into account? Basingstoke and Deane will gain—I stress, gain—£6 a person overall, while Knowsley will lose £227 per person. East Dorset gains £3 a resident, while Manchester loses £186. In Greater London, everyone loses, but some lose much more than others. The borough of Richmond is down by £2 a head, whereas Hackney is hit by a whacking great loss of £234 a head. Why is that? Those are the raw figures behind the hard-faced politics that prove that the Chancellor is trying to balance the budget on the backs of the poor.
	If Ministers do not like hearing the truth from Newcastle or from their own statistics, what about hearing it from the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies? Its analysis by region shows that London and the north of England have been especially badly hit. Every year it publishes the green budget before the real Budget, and the 2012 green budget shows that overall cuts in local government spending, excluding education, are largest in both absolute and proportional terms in London, the north-east and the north-west.

George Howarth: My right hon. Friend mentioned Knowsley a moment ago when he was comparing figures. Does he agree that when we look at the acute levels of deprivation across the spectrum that we experience in Knowsley, those figures are even worse, because some of the poorest communities in the country are being punished severely in comparison with some of the better-off communities which are getting off almost scot-free?

Hilary Benn: My right hon. Friend argues the case for his constituents with great force and vigour, and he is absolutely right. This is fundamentally unfair. The reason it is happening—the Minister was remarkably reluctant to admit the truth—is that councils in deprived urban areas rely to a much greater extent than councils in more affluent areas on central grants from the Treasury, which have been cut significantly.

Brandon Lewis: Is it not important to make sure we understand the starting point for the councils the right hon. Gentleman mentioned? For example, the figure for a council such as Richmond was something like £150, but he is comparing it with that for Hackney, which was at £967 in the first place.

Hilary Benn: Of course there is a difference because there is much greater deprivation in Hackney than in Richmond. I should have thought even the hon. Gentleman would be able to work that out for himself.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the real impact of these cuts in areas such as the north-west of England where my constituency is
	based. May I share with him the impact of the cuts on Tameside, which saw a £38 million reduction last year and a £35 million reduction this year, and which will see a £32 million reduction next year? That will have a real impact on the delivery of services to one of our most deprived urban communities.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is right. It is quite shocking that the Government have done this knowing what it will do, but at no time have they apologised, as they should, for the unfair way in which they have allocated these cuts, but it is time they did, because it is now clear that far from all of us being in it together, some are much more in it than others. This is not just about local authorities, because the same is true of funding for the fire service, which we are also discussing.

John Redwood: The right hon. Gentleman said that East Dorset and Basingstoke will gain money, but those districts do not get the increases for education and other county services. We are asked to approve a fall in East Dorset from £2.75 million to £2.5 million—a 10% fall—and a fall in Basingstoke from £6.74 million to £6.25 million, which is also quite a big fall because those districts will not get the other increases.

Hilary Benn: The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not listen carefully enough to the point I made. If he has not seen the figures produced by Newcastle city council he should do so, because it has looked at the impact of the cuts over three years and has taken account of transition grant and the new homes bonus allocation. In other words, it has looked at the total effect on those authorities of all the decisions the Government have taken, and that is what the figures show.
	In relation to the fire service, there are brigade areas with a very high rate of incidents, such as Merseyside, Cleveland, Greater Manchester and West Midlands. What is happening to them? They are all facing reductions in funding per head, whereas areas with a lower rate of incidence, thank goodness, such as Hampshire, Royal Berkshire, and Hereford and Worcester, will get increases in their funding per head for the fire service. What that means for the losers is that fire stations are closing, pumps are going and firefighters are losing their jobs.

Dave Watts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most efficient fire authorities are in the metropolitan areas, and that they are the ones that are losing the most money? I thought that this Government wanted to incentivise local authorities and fire services to become more efficient, but that does not seem to be the case.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is right. Certainly the West Yorkshire fire service does an extremely good job in meeting the needs of all our constituents.
	Worse is to come if Ministers insist on proceeding with the cuts that they have planned for years 3 and 4. As the Minister will know, the metropolitan fire chiefs have been so worried about the prospect that they have given Ministers a stark warning in their response to the review, in which they say:
	“The Mets have already shouldered 62% of the cuts in the English fire and rescue service outside London in the first two years…The cuts planned for years 3 and 4 are unsustainable and would lead to life threatening reductions in fire cover and national resilience capacity”.
	Unless the Minister has a very good answer to that, he ought to reconsider his plans for the cuts in years 3 and 4.
	Last year the Local Government Association warned that the consequences of the cuts in local government finance would be felt in front-line services, although—the Minister made this point—many councils have rationalised back-office services and cut costs. The approach of the Secretary of State and the Minister is to blame councils for all this, claiming that front-line cuts are not necessary. I was interested to read what the Minister told the Select Committee back in 2010, when he was questioned by its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). My hon. Friend put this to him:
	“So the bottom line from your point of view, then, as a ministerial team, is that there is no need for any cuts in services in local government at all.”
	The Minister replied:
	“No, they shouldn’t be cutting the front-line services.”
	Only a group of Ministers who were completely divorced from what was going on in the real world in local government could say such a thing in public. We know, however, that in private some of them have said something rather different. Last year the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) wrote to fellow Liberal Democrats—[Hon. Members: “Where is he?”] He cannot be locked in the Division Lobby this time, but it would have been nice to see him here. In his letter, he described the local government settlement as “very disappointing”. A year ago, Liberal Democrat councillors published a letter in The Times in which they said that local government was
	“being let done by the Communities and Local Government Secretary”.
	Even a good friend of the Secretary of State and the Minister, the much respected Baroness Eaton, accused Ministers of being
	“detached from the reality councils are dealing with”.

Derek Twigg: May I make a point about the impact of front-line cuts on people? In Halton, adaptations for people with disabilities can no longer be obtained because of Government cuts. The Minister did not answer my question earlier, when I asked why the much more prosperous Cheshire East authority has been subject to a much smaller cut than Halton, which is one of the most deprived boroughs in the country.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, and has anticipated what I am about to say about the impact of the cuts.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the role of the Liberal Democrats. May I take him to the Stockport part of my constituency, which is Liberal Democrat-controlled, and remind him that throughout the years of the Labour Government, the council’s grant increased year on year? Year after year the council resolved that that money was not enough, but since 2010 it has faced a £54 million cut in its budget, and we have not heard a peep out of it. What has changed?

Hilary Benn: Sadly, when it comes to the Liberal Democrats, not much has changed at all. That is a pattern of behaviour with which many of us in the House are all too familiar.
	We have discussed the figures, now let us turn to the consequences of all this. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised that he would protect Sure Start. Members may recall that he took the former Prime Minister to task for suggesting that that might not happen. What has actually happened? A reply given by Ministers just before Christmas shows that there are now 124 fewer Sure Start centres than there were when the coalition was formed. So much for the Prime Minister’s pledge.
	DCLG figures show that last year 93 out of 152 councils —61% of them—cut spending on providing meals on wheels for the elderly compared with their spend in 2009-10, and 55 authorities cut spending on adult social care, although all of us know our authorities face increasing pressures in that area. Also, 75 councils reduced spending on equipment and adaptations for disabled and elderly adults, and according to another survey, 88% of councils were increasing their care charges.

Andy Slaughter: My right hon. Friend mentioned Sure Start. Conservative Hammersmith and Fulham council has cut the Sure Start budget by more than 45% in one year. Perhaps its councillors did not hear the Minister saying there should be no cuts in front-line services. I thought that all Members recognised that Sure Start is an initiative that in the long run will improve educational achievement and cut youth offending, and that it is therefore a good and efficient investment, yet almost 50% of its budget has been cut in one year by this authority.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes that point very forcefully. I wonder whether Hammersmith and Fulham will still be the Secretary of State’s favourite council once he becomes aware of what it has been doing, in marked contrast to what the Prime Minister of the party it supports said at the time of the election—but then that is sadly familiar, too.
	We cannot get much more front line than making sure old people have a hot meal every day or get their shopping done, or helping people to remain in their own home by building a ramp or putting a shower on the ground floor, so whatever the Minister of State was thinking when he answered an earlier question, or whatever the Secretary of State was thinking in December when he described the draft settlement as
	“enough to safeguard the most vulnerable, protect taxpayers’ interests and the front-line services they rely on”,
	I would gently say to them that they must recognise the damage that such comments do to the credibility of DCLG Ministers. Every time they say such things councillors, officers and people in local communities look at each other and ask, “Don’t they have any idea of what is actually going on in the world we have to live in?”

Bill Esterson: My right hon. Friend talks about the damage being done and the reality on the ground, and that is precisely what my constituents are concerned about. They are concerned about the damage to services that my right hon. Friend has described. All that he has said is true in Sefton, which faces a 25% cut, in common with many other metropolitan boroughs.

Grant Shapps: The figure is 3.9%.

Bill Esterson: I thank the Minister for that correction. Sefton also faces the impact of the associated job losses on local businesses that rely on the public sector, as well as the impact of the localisation of business rates. The local economy will suffer greatly as a result of the money taken out of it due to the local government cuts. Businesses will not be in a position to expand. They will also be contracting, and the council will not be able to take advantage of the changes in business rates. That will be disastrous for everybody in Sefton.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful point about the impact of all this on the overall economy, and I shall say a few words about the effect on jobs shortly.
	The Institute for Fiscal Studies reports on another area that has been affected. It says that significant reductions in expenditure on planning and economic development are being seen. Councils will need as much resource as possible to respond to the national planning policy framework, and in particular to draw up their new plans if they have not got them, or to revise the plans if they have got them, because if they do not do that, developers can come in and say, “We want to make use of the presumption in favour of sustainable development.” However, they will find that the resource they need to do that work will largely have disappeared.
	I am reluctant to raise this point, but I shall: it is extraordinary that although the Minister stands up and says, “Money’s very tight,” his Secretary of State has found £0.25 billion to try to persuade councils to change their minds about how to collect their rubbish. The great localist thinks he knows better than they do how it should be done, even though household recycling rates have more than doubled since 1997, thus saving residents a lot of money in landfill levy, and the majority of councils whose minds he is trying to change with his cash are controlled by councillors from his own party. It is a very expensive family disagreement.

Clive Betts: Is it not incredible that this nest egg of money has been trailed before councils, which are to put in bids for a scheme we are not sure about? No prudent council would formulate next year’s budget on the basis that there might be some money at some time coming from the Secretary of State. Also, it is completely wrong of the Deputy Prime Minister to criticise Sheffield council for not taking account of this possible money before setting its budget for next year.

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it will be interesting to see in the end how many councils choose to take it up, not least because there is a knock-on consequence over the five years for which the Government are expecting them to change their system. Frankly, £250 million could have been better spent on social care, aid and adaptations, and meals on wheels.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) pointed out a moment ago, one consequence of all this has been huge job losses. As we know, the Office for Budget Responsibility announced in November a dramatic revision of its projection of the total number of jobs that would be lost in the public sector, including in local government—up from 410,000 to 710,000 in the
	years ahead—in part because of what has been happening in local government, and in part because of the front-loading of the cuts.
	For England and Wales as a whole, the reduction in the number of workers employed by councils between the first quarter of 2010 and the second quarter of 2011 totalled 129,000, of which women accounted for two thirds. In other words, women are bearing the brunt of these reductions, and it is one of the reasons why the Chancellor’s economic plan is frankly in such a mess. In 2010, he boasted in his first Budget, “Never mind about the jobs that will be lost in the public sector, because they’re going to be replaced by jobs created in the private sector”, assuring us that that would be the case. What has actually happened? In the last quarter, for every 13 jobs that went in the public sector—all 67,000 of them—just one was created in the private sector. That is why the economy is not growing, the plan is not working and the Government are having to borrow more than they said they would.
	I have a couple of specific questions that I hope the Minister will respond to. On academies funding, the Local Government Association’s view is that the £265 million that the Education Secretary has finally decided to top-slice—having at one point threatened to take even more—is too high a figure because it does not reflect the actual savings that will accrue to local education authorities. I agree with the LGA. Do Ministers share that view, have they argued local government’s case with the Education Secretary, and does the Minister think that will be enough to put off a resumption of the stalled judicial reviews on this matter? Secondly, on the business rates pooling account, I should be grateful if the Minister clarified whether the Government plan to run a surplus again this year, as they did last year, and if so how it complies with the law on the account’s operation.
	The third and last area I wish to turn to is uncertainty, particularly that created by the Local Government Finance Bill. Many councils have no idea, frankly, what their financial position will be next year because the Government’s policy is to localise uncertainty and volatility. As things stand, no council knows what its baseline will be next year under the legislation going through the House, what top-slice share the Government want to take, how the levy will work, how the safety net will operate or what impact, for example, the closure of a large employer in its area would have on business rate income. Nor do councils know, given the 1% average limit on pay increases, how much will be taken off them by the Treasury, although there are estimates of £200 million in 2013-14 and £400 million in 2014-15.
	Furthermore, on the council tax benefit, nobody knows exactly how the budget minus the 10% will be distributed, what the take-up will be, and how councils are meant to cope with a rise in unemployment and, therefore, with an increase in applications in their areas. I gently advise Government Members to have a very good look at what this will mean for their constituents, because many Government Members represent areas where the proportion of pensioners is higher than the average. The more that is true, the greater the cut in council tax benefit or, to put it another way, the bigger the council tax bill that will have to be paid by their voters on low incomes, who have absolutely no idea what the coalition Government have in store for them.

Mike Hancock: Once again, I declare my interest as a member of local government. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s worries that local authorities are not in a position even to guess what the situation will be next year. Does he agree that what is even more worrying is that the Government do not have a clue about what the position will be, and that that is the problem we face?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and we are talking about a change that the Government are apparently determined to push through in a very short space of time. [Interruption.] On the council tax benefit localisation, it is not a change, with the 10% cut, that I agree with. Government Members ought to listen to what council treasurers and leaders up and down the country are saying, and they should make their views forcefully known to their Front-Bench team before they find their constituents asking them, “What is it you voted for? Why did you do this to me?”
	All this uncertainty has been created by the Secretary of State, because it is his Bill and his lack of clarity. What would a prudent authority do in these circumstances and faced with such uncertainty? What authorities actually do is build up reserves to guard against it, yet we know what the Secretary of State does to councils that have reserves—he attacks and vilifies them. That is a pattern of behaviour with which councillors of all political colours have become all too wearily familiar.
	I shall now deal with council tax and the other motion before us. Let us remember that average council tax bills are lower under Labour-run councils than Conservative ones. No council, especially in the current circumstances, wants to raise council tax if it does not have to do so. Councils will do their best to avoid doing so, unlike the Secretary of State, who says that he wants to protect people from increases in council tax and then the next moment introduces legislation that will impose council tax increases on people on low incomes.
	As my hon. Friends have said, this year’s council tax freeze grant is a one-off, unlike last year’s, and that creates a dilemma for councils. The Tory leader of Surrey county council, which I understand is not proposing to take the freeze grant, said very simply:
	“The freeze would be a short-term gain for long-term pain.”
	Why has he said that? He has done so because the freeze could mean that residents face bigger council tax increases next year and subsequently.
	On the referendum proposal, capping powers have of course been in place since the Local Government Finance Act 1992 was passed by the previous Conservative Government. It is right that councils are accountable for the decisions they make, although if the Secretary of State were true to his “localist” principles, he would have allowed local residents to hold the trigger on any referendum. Instead, the legislation will provide that he will determine the benchmark—so he decides what is excessive. He will determine how the referendum is conducted, the question to be put, the publicity and expenditure levels to be permitted and how the votes are counted. He will even be able to direct that the referendum provisions do not apply and decree the council tax requirement that must actually operate. In effect, the Secretary of State will set the maximum level of council tax increase each year.

Bob Neill: May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Cabinet that had capping, whereby the Secretary of State used to set the maximum council tax each year without even asking anyone?

Hilary Benn: Indeed, with the powers having been put in place by the previous Conservative Government and having remained in place when we were in government. I was merely pointing out to the Minister the inconsistency in the Secretary of State’s argument: he says he is a great localiser but on bins and on referendums it appears that he knows better than everyone else.

Bob Neill: rose —

Hilary Benn: I have been very generous in giving way and I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already, so I am going to conclude to allow others to speak.
	On the question of how the 3.5% is calculated, however, after the exchange we have just heard, I would say that I think councils would welcome absolute clarity about what kind of increase would trigger a referendum, not least because of the costs that would result.
	In conclusion, the settlement needs to be seen for what it is. The Minister referred to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and, as he might have read, last month it talked to a number of senior council officials about the impact that reductions in local authority budgets will have on the most deprived communities. The BBC reported what one officer, who, incidentally, works for a Conservative-controlled authority, said, and I want to quote him. He said, very simply:
	“This is the most unfair and unjust settlement I have ever seen”.
	I agree. It is unfair to councils and unfair to local residents, and that is why we will vote against this motion.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. As hon. Members know, the debate is time-limited. Although I am not introducing a time limit on each Back-Bench speech, if Members go on ad nauseam I or one of my successors will have no hesitation in introducing one. That is not directed at anybody in particular. I call Bob Blackman.

Bob Blackman: I feel suitably constrained by your introduction, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), not least because he is so eloquent and sets out such a strong case for local government. Of course, he knows a thing or two about it, as he was in local government before he arrived in this place.
	My starting point is that this is the second year of a two-year settlement. We must consider how far the Government have departed from that settlement in this second year. The reality is that there been improvements to the financial settlement for local government. The one
	thing for which local government has cried out for many years is certainty over funding. Even if it is bad news, it is better to be certain about what will happen. I am one of those who praised the previous Government for introducing a three-year settlement, as it was probably one of the few things they did well. Even though the settlement for many local authorities was not good, at least it was certain and everyone knew what would happen.
	I listened as many Opposition Members intervened on the Minister to ask about the reductions that their councils will suffer. When fundamental changes are made to any type of funding formula and any process of local government funding, there are bound to be winners and losers. One problem that has been associated with local government financing for so long, as the Minister rightly articulated, is the fact that the funding formula is horrendously complicated and virtually no one understands it. Figures are put in, indices are changed, the numbers are crunched and the figures come out. If those figures are not to everyone’s liking, people seek to change the indices to make the facts suit the result that they want.

Kevan Jones: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a long history in local government and will be aware of the old council tax resource equalisation, which took into account the needs of different councils and gave a level playing field. Does he agree that what we have now is a system that redistributes resources from poorer areas to richer areas? Even worse than that, it gets poorer areas to pay for it under the new damping system.

Bob Blackman: I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. A key issue is that comparisons made year on year must consider the amount per person, per household and so on that the authority has in the first place. One problem under the previous Government was that we saw money moved from London to northern authorities; a deliberate decision was taken and it was quite clear that that was taking place. Now, the balance is being redressed. That is quite right, but the problem is that the hon. Gentleman is comparing one year with another rather than looking at the longer term issues and at how certain authorities have gained substantially over the longer term.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman also recognise that those northern councils have a different council tax base? In the north-east of England, for example, 50% of properties are in band A, whereas in Surrey that figure is less than 2%, so even if those councils wanted to raise extra finance locally, their ability is severely limited.

Bob Blackman: I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says about council tax base. That is a fair point. I notice that over some 13 years the Labour Government declined to review the council tax base or the underlying valuations, and I notice that the Government have agreed to continue that process of not revaluing properties for council tax purposes.
	We have the opportunity once again this year for a council tax freeze. That is welcomed by local authorities and hard-pressed taxpayers. The Government are
	committed to that and it should be delivered. I call on all local authorities to take the opportunity of the grant and to freeze the council tax across the country so that all hard-pressed taxpayers can gain the benefit. It is true that different authorities are doing different things across the country. I shall not go into detail; I leave that to others.
	Before the last election, everyone knew that local government finance would be substantially reduced. It was in the Labour party manifesto and in the Conservative party manifesto. Everyone knew that it was coming. Every local authority, regardless of its political persuasion, should have planned for those reductions and should therefore have implemented them over the past two years. A series of measures could be undertaken, and I shall mention a few. The first is to cut executive pay. It is interesting that in the past few days the Labour party, in particular, has been talking about people receiving large amounts of public money. There is no doubt that chief executives and senior executives of local authorities have been the beneficiaries of huge increases in pay over the past few years. At a time when local authority funding is decreasing, it is right that senior executive pay in local authorities reduces.
	I am not a great fan of my local council, Harrow council, but I take my hat off to it for the measures that it is introducing. Its chief executive is cutting his own pay. He is cutting the number of senior executives and their pay, and he has introduced a system of pay within the local authority which means that the workers on the ground will be paid the same hourly rate regardless of when they work, but they will work a normal working week.

Andrew Gwynne: The hon. Gentleman said that local authorities should have expected and planned for reductions. I have some sympathy with that argument because it was clear, as he said, that were there to be a Conservative Government in particular, there would be some substantial reductions to local authority funding. Does he recognise, however, that the real problem for authorities such as mine started in 2010 with the in-year cuts, which took a massive amount of spending out of their budgets that they had already planned for and already started to spend?

Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that.
	I shall come on to some of the issues that every local authority in the country should be examining. Are they using their procurement capability properly? Have they joined with other local authorities to procure services, such as adult social care, using their buying power instead of competing one on one for the private sector services that are available? Have they shared their services across the various councils that operate within their area? Very few local authorities have done that.
	Have local authorities fundamentally restructured the services that they deliver, to eliminate multiple handling? The vast majority of councils handle a multitude of grant applications and applications for different services, yet that information is input for every single service, so we have a multiplicity of inputs coming from the most needy families. That means that we employ in local government far too many people to repeat the handling of those cases. Those services should be simplified so
	that the vulnerable in society supply their data only once and then benefit from whatever services the local authority provides. Has the local authority properly considered outsourcing its services? There are direct suppliers that can deliver those services, often at a fraction of the cost of the public sector.

Clive Betts: One of the problems with outsourcing that many councils find, including mine in Sheffield, is that when they have to make cuts to a contract that was agreed some years ago, the cost of changing it can be considerable, and they have less flexibility to adjust services under the new financial constraints than if they had employed people directly, in-house.

Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. One of the necessary aspects of outsourcing is making sure that local authorities work on a partnership basis, rather than just by the letter of the law as set out in the contract. Far too many local authorities are not smart enough in the way they write procurement contracts to make them fit for purpose. By ensuring that contracts are demonstrated and written in the right sort of way, flexibility can be built in and services maintained.

Bob Stewart: Surely the best way of doing that is by writing the contract in the first place with break points at regular intervals so that changes can be made.

Bob Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me that one of the necessary aspects of procurement is having suitable break points and review points in a contract, so that the contract is long enough for investment to take place but can be changed or terminated by the local authority if the service is not up to scratch.
	I also take issue with the view of the right hon. Member for Leeds Central on balances and reserves. I feel very strongly that taking money from council tax payers and putting it into reserves or balances, rather than spending it on services, is theft from the taxpayer, because it is not being invested in the services provided. In my view, local authorities that maintain large reserves or balances are fundamentally fooling their taxpayers and should be exposed for doing so. Local authorities should maintain balances, but only balances that are required for cash-flow purposes or for funding in-year hikes that might take place.

Kevan Jones: When the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, he talked about the importance of mending the roof while the sun was shining. Given the uncertainty that the Government are bringing into local finance, is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that local councils should have no reserves at all to fall back on if their local council tax base goes down following a big closure or some other catastrophe? That is just bad business.

Bob Blackman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for pointing out the issues relating to balances and reserves. They should be precisely for funding a local authority’s cash-flow requirements, not for saving huge amounts to cushion unexpected amounts. The reality is that there are authorities up and down the
	country that are sitting on huge balances. I take the view that no more than 10% of council tax take should be maintained as a balance.
	I want to mention three other areas. The Government have changed the whole basis behind local government finance, and that is coming forward in legislation. That will change the whole ambit of how local authorities are rewarded. We had some interesting discussions on Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill about the fact that deprivation was a key driver for local authorities. The more deprived a local authority area, the more money it got. The Government are changing the whole ambit and structure of finance. We will have a situation in which house building leads to a new homes bonus, so local authorities will be rewarded for building houses and will receive finance as a result. Under the business rate retention scheme, local authorities will be encouraged to promote employment and job opportunities, so we will have an enterprise-led economy, encouraged by local authorities, and the onus will be on enterprise and not on deprivation..
	I conclude by reflecting on what has happened in London this year. I applaud the fact that, after three years of council tax freezes under Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London is reducing—reducing!—his share of the council tax, not only ensuring that we have 1,000 extra police officers on the beat, but reducing crime and improving services to Londoners overall. Let us compare that with the record of the great pretender, the old pretender, who over eight years increased his share of the council tax by 152%. The comparison could not be starker. We get a better service and better value for money under the Conservatives.

Clive Betts: I was in a bit of agreement with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), another member of the Select Committee, until he made his final comment, when we reached the point of complete disagreement.
	First, the issue to which we return today is very much the issue that we debated in the House a year ago. It is about funding for local government, whereby the Government have an overall policy of cutting public expenditure by 19% but have decided that local government expenditure can be cut by 28%. That is the reality. Local government has been singled out for much larger cuts than the rest of the public services, presumably because Ministers believe that the services that local government provides are less important. That must be the reality.

Bob Neill: indicated  dissent .

Clive Betts: The Minister begins to shake his head, but, if he does not believe in that, why is he prepared to support the local authority grant reductions, which are so much larger than the reductions in other Government expenditure? That is the question to which Ministers have never really addressed themselves.

Bob Neill: The Department’s reduction in central costs and administrative expenditure is in excess of 30% and, in total administrative costs, rises to about 40%. We have put our money where our mouth is and reduced our costs more.

Clive Betts: I thank the Minister for that reply. It is certainly true that there has been a substantial loss of civil servants in the Department for Communities and Local Government, but I did not say that local government expenditure had been cut more than the overheads in the DCLG; I said that it had been cut more than the overall cut in central Government expenditure. That is the reality, and Ministers ought to be prepared to defend it if they believe that local government services are less important.
	Secondly, the cuts were front-loaded. Local government itself argued that, if in the end the cuts were going to be made over a four-year period, they should not be front-loaded, because it would mean rushed cuts with a bigger impact on front-line services than if councils had the time to do more about shared services, an issue to which I shall turn in due course. That, too, is the reality.
	We are also told that there has been the certainty of a two-year settlement, but local government was given to understand that there would be the certainty of a four-year settlement—an indication of the cuts over a four-year period. It appears that that is not quite the case. The advantages of front-loading, as initially sold, were that at least local councils would know the score for four years, but, now that the Chancellor has to find another £150 billion of borrowing, no doubt he will return to local government to make further cuts in years three and four. Ministers have not referred to that at all so far.
	We will then have the cuts that will follow the changes in the Local Government Finance Bill, which is going through Parliament, and the cuts in council tax benefit funding—another uncertainty for local councils. The pretended certainty of last year is, therefore, beginning to unravel in terms of years three and four, and the one good part of the settlement—that councils knew where they were for four years—is apparently no longer the case.
	The third point—alongside bigger cuts for local councils, and the fact that they were front-loaded and there is now uncertainty in years three and four—is the unfairness, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) amply demonstrated. The Minister could not argue when I intervened on him, because in reality the councils with the greatest need receive the greatest grant, and they are seeing the biggest cuts in Government funding. That is fundamentally unfair.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. On the point about the greatest cuts falling on those with the greatest need, I should say that next year Halton will lose £44 per head; Cheshire East, the Chancellor’s council area, will lose £19 per head. The Prime Minister’s area of Oxfordshire will lose £21 per head. How can that be described as fair?

Clive Betts: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I certainly would not describe that as fair, although Ministers apparently would. My constituents certainly do not understand why Sheffield city council is having to cut its budget by more than 10% while other councils have to make cuts of only a tenth of that amount—in percentage terms, let alone in respect of the relative difference per head of population.

Bob Stewart: Would it not be fairer, and would it not be seen to be fairer, if we talked in terms of percentage cuts rather than using actual figures? If we looked at the cuts in terms of percentages, we would see things better. I am myself trying to clarify the point.

Clive Betts: Sheffield city council is making cuts of 11% in its budget this year, and that is substantially more than many councils in more affluent parts of the country are making—much bigger in percentage terms, let alone in amounts per head.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Clive Betts: I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I must make progress.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is nonsense to suggest, as the Minister did, that somehow an organisation such as Sheffield city council can have 11% taken from its budget without that affecting front-line services—no matter how many pot plants are consigned to the dustbin?

Clive Betts: I agree with that point without in any way saying that Sheffield city council spends a great deal of money on pot plants; of course it does not.

Bob Neill: We know who does, don’t we?

Clive Betts: I am sure that the Minister will provide some figures in due course.
	We have heard from Ministers all the ways in which councils can save money. Of course there are many ways in which that can happen without front-line services being affected; the reality is that councils have been very good at that over the years. Through the period of the Labour Government, councils were forced to find about 2% in efficiency savings, year on year. Over the past 20 years, in fact, they have generally been much better at that than central Government. Councils have a good track record.
	If the cuts were not so front-loaded, councils would have had more time to prepare and consider efficiency savings. Cuts to services cannot just be dreamed up overnight; they are often the product of complex negotiations between councils and other public bodies to make sure that the agreements are proper and genuinely deliver savings.
	I have just had information about what is going on in Sheffield. Together with Government Departments and other public agencies, Sheffield city council is embarking on a look at the whole public estate—the buildings that the public sector owns or leases, and operates. With central Government Departments and agencies, the council is trying to get better value for money from the whole public estate.
	That programme cannot be delivered overnight. There could be very large savings if it is carried out properly, but it must be done in a considered way, with everyone working together. The council cannot simply click its fingers and say that a certain number of millions of pounds in savings are coming next year. The process takes time. Many of us have been trying to argue that the savings can probably come about, but that they will take time.
	In the meantime, front-line services are being hit. Concessionary bus fares for young people in Sheffield increased from 40p to 50p this year and will go up to 60p next year. Young people always appear to be getting the brunt of the cuts—tuition fees, the education maintenance allowance and the cuts to youth and career services. The other day, people at a school that I was visiting said that work experience has now stopped because Government funding to assist it has stopped and employers are not responding.
	All those things are happening to young people. Sixty pence for a bus fare may not seem a lot, but when the Youth Parliament in Sheffield did an assessment of young people’s needs two or three years ago, buses came out as top of the list of things that are important to young people, as they mean mobility, independence and not having to rely on other people to get around.
	Of course, we are seeing cuts in care services for the elderly. Let us congratulate councils such as Sheffield, which is cutting those services by only 5%, when 11% is coming off its total budget, and it is trying to concentrate on administration, management and back-room services. The council is trying to prioritise cuts on back-room services—15% in human resources, 14% in legal services and 26% in IT. But do not let us pretend that legal services, IT and other such services can simply be cut with no eventual impact on front-line services. If we are to make all the changes to the public estate that I mentioned, we will need legal officers in the council. Back-room services are important for the delivery of an efficient front line.
	Sheffield council has decided to move to fortnightly refuse collections and to improve its recycling offer. That will save £2.5 million a year, and although it cannot simply exempt those services from the savings, it will try and improve its recycling. The Secretary of State has a view—presumably shared by Ministers—that such matters are all about localism until he has a particular policy or pet project that he wants to see implemented. He believes in weekly bin collection. That is up to him. The idea is that having abolished the vast majority of ring-fenced grants—and I support the Government’s policy on that—we should suddenly invent a new ring-fenced grant for this one issue. It is not quite a new ring-fenced grant, however, because the grant is not in place. Perhaps we may call it a new ring-fenced idea.
	Local authorities now have to draw up budgets and decide what to do. They must be prudent, but when considering how their services will be delivered next year, they cannot take account of money that may arrive under a scheme that has not yet been announced. How on earth do Ministers expect local authorities to respond to their view of the world regarding refuse collection if they trail a grant in advance that will perhaps no longer be in place when councils start to formulate their budgets? Councils have no idea whether they will get any money, what will be the criteria for the scheme, how much money there will be in the first, second and third years, and when the money will run out, leaving them to pick up the bill.
	Is it not a disgrace for Ministers to trail such a scheme, and then criticise councils—just as the Deputy Prime Minister criticised Sheffield council—for moving to a fortnightly refuse collection? Ministers say that councils should instead take advantage of Government
	money that has not yet been announced. That is a ridiculous way to run anything. If a parish council ran its affairs in such a way, Ministers would be on their feet, proclaiming that it was inefficient and incompetent. Labour Members can therefore say that this Government are inefficient and incompetent in their handling of this issue.
	One or two other points have been raised. Of course we want to see the voluntary sector contribute, whether to the big society or to the delivery of better services for their communities. Again, I congratulate Sheffield council because it is cutting money to the voluntary sector by just 5% this year, compared with the 11% cut to the total council budget.
	The voluntary sector depends on public sector employees working with it to deliver services. All the volunteers in my constituency who take part in environmental improvement schemes rely on two council officers, with a bit of seed money to provide training and materials. That is how it works. We cannot divorce the voluntary sector from the rest of the council services.
	Neither can we divorce private jobs from public jobs. More than 550 public sector employees in Sheffield city council will lose their jobs, or posts will be held vacant, as a result of the council’s budget proposals. Fortnightly bin collections, however, are outsourced to Veolia, so it will be not public sector workers who lose their jobs but those in the private sector who are employed by that company. We cannot divorce the public and private sectors. The cuts that have necessarily been made by councils up and down the country will affect private sector employment as well as public sector employment. Orders from councils will be reduced as they will have less money to spend, and private sector companies will suffer as a result. The idea that private sector companies will grow jobs on the back of the cuts is fallacious. That is why the economy is heading for recession.
	I conclude with one further point about the fire service. The other day, we went to see the Minister with responsibility for the fire service, who is responding to this debate. He kindly agreed to meet a delegation, and I hope that he listened carefully to the fact that the cuts to the fire service grants of the metropolitan fire authorities are twice the level of those for other fire authorities in the country. Fire chiefs are saying that if the cuts continue for a third and fourth year, they will not be able to deliver appropriate fire cover in their areas.
	In my constituency, three fire stations are being closed and will be replaced by just two. That may be a more efficient way of delivering fire cover, but it will result in slower response times to some of the large industrial plants in Sheffield that still operate in the steel industry and other related industries. People are worried that if that happens, it could create greater risks at a time when we hope to see great Sheffield firms such as Sheffield Forgemasters continue. We would not want them to be put at greater risk by reduced fire cover. We hope that Ministers will listen to those concerns.
	This settlement is unfair to many councils, and those in the greatest need are receiving the biggest cuts. In total, it demonstrates that the Government value the services provided by local councils less highly than other public expenditure, and I will certainly be in the Lobby with my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it this evening.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. In order to accommodate remaining colleagues who wish to contribute to the debate, to whose numbers, by my sight, one has just been added, making the list slightly longer than the one I had in my possession, I am imposing an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions with immediate effect.

Annette Brooke: I intend to be relatively brief, Mr Speaker.
	We have to start by being clear that very tough cuts have been imposed on local government. It accounts for 25% of all public expenditure, so councils were always going to have to play a considerable role in fixing the black hole in the nation’s finances. It has been hard, given the front-loading of the cuts, but I wish to praise the many councils across the country that have approached innovatively the tasks with which they were faced. I sometimes think that central Government can learn from some local government practices, because councils are closer to the ground and have extra flexibility in how they approach things.
	In my area, for example, two councils now share a chief executive, and there has been much more working together among councils, with the county council co-ordinating it. Poole’s unitary council is merging certain services with Bournemouth, which makes a lot of sense given that they are both relatively small unitary councils. A lot of action is taking place.
	I am slightly frightened of getting absolute numbers and percentages mixed up, which is what has been happening all afternoon, but I point out that East Dorset council’s revenue support grant per head is £25.98, so there will not be a £200 cut. There cannot be. We therefore have to consider percentages. One might say that a more deprived area should not have the same percentage cuts as a less deprived one, but there is a difficulty with that. As we know, any organisation has certain basic costs that are the same. We need only look at schools, which need a certain number of staff whether they are big or small. That is an absolute fact.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Annette Brooke: I will not, because I want to make it clear that it is not correct to switch from numbers to percentages and to try to blur the picture. We know that the percentage cuts are large, averaging 3.3% but varying across the country. In fact, in my part of the country the percentages are towards the higher end.
	One of the councils in my area, Dorset county council, is particularly concerned about the funding lost through the current formula damping. We can ask ourselves where that money goes, and we find that, probably quite rightly, it goes to more deprived areas. However, I am told that Dorset has lost a greater proportion of its grant entitlement through that formula—the Labour Government’s formula, I might add—than any authority in recent years. It will lose more than £7.4 million in 2012-13. There is great concern that the damping mechanism will become locked into the baseline for future years. I want to flag up that point as we move to a new system.
	We must accept that the Government amended the funding formula to take greater account of councils’ need. Extra funding is available, for example to support adult social care, but I represent an area where the demand for social care is great in relation to resources. All Departments must give a great deal of thought to the funding of social care while we wait for the White Paper and for anything new to kick in, because here and now, councils across the country have enormous problems in ensuring that the most vulnerable people get enough support. That same situation applies throughout the country. There are pressures on that funding.
	The new homes bonus is a plus, bringing in extra funding, and on balance, the council tax freeze for this year is a plus. I well remember being on the council under Labour, when the average increase in council tax in England was something like 10.4%, which enormously affected people who were just above the level of qualifying for any benefit. When I reflect back to that time, I recall that I was blamed as a councillor for that increase in council tax, which was because of Government funding. We come back to that point over and over.
	In these difficult times, a council tax freeze is very good, but every council in the country is worried because of that one-off payment, as a number of hon. Members have pointed out. How do councils adapt to the situation in subsequent years? It would be wrong not to point out that that is a big concern.
	A further concern that I have picked up from my local councils is that they feel they have coped with planning for the cuts that they have had to impose so far, but the uncertainty of next year gives them much less lead-in time for future planning. The Government must take on board the problems that councils face.
	Like the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, I believe that ending ring-fencing is a good move. It is quite painful for local councils, but if we believe in localism, it must be the right thing. Moving towards the new system is right. We surely cannot defend the old system. Nobody understood the formula and it failed the test of time.
	I hope that Communities and Local Government Ministers monitor the costs that are shunted on to local councils from other Departments. Examples include the 50% cut in community safety grant; the youth justice proposal that local authorities take youth offenders into care; and full recovery for court proceedings under the Children Act 2004. I could go on, but I shall conclude exactly on time.

Mary Glindon: I shall concentrate on what the local government settlement means for my council. I have advised my colleagues many times before in the Chamber that North Tyneside council has a mayor and cabinet system. Unfortunately, it currently has a Tory cabinet and mayor, but 35 of the 60 councillors are Labour. No doubt that number will increase in May.
	The mayor has decided to go for the zero council tax increase deal, which many councillors would argue means a loss of money year on year. That remains to be seen. As a result of the local government settlement, our Tory council faces a cut of £17 million, and following the fashion of the Tory Government, it wants to make
	savings by cutting services to the most vulnerable members of our community. They want to cease the breakfast offer for breakfast schools, remove free fruit and milk for key stage 2 pupils and increase home care charges by £50 a week—those charges rose by 51% last year and are currently £151 per week. Even before the budget is set, my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and I find ourselves pleading the case for hundreds of bowlers in North Tyneside, because the council wants to increase their bowling fees by 400% over the next three years, which will put this sport out of the reach of many older people, for whom it is genuinely a lifeline.
	The mayor has come up with an even more radical solution to her difficult budget problem. She and the cabinet want to outsource almost all council services to the private sector by October this year. The only services that will stay in-house will be legal services and the safeguarding of children and young people. Everything else is up for grabs. North Tyneside is no stranger to outsourcing, having outsourced council repairs some years ago, but that proved to be an inefficient and costly service for those who used it—the number of complaints that my office gets every week testifies to that.
	There is no getting away from the fact that private companies need to make profits. As the leader of the Labour group in North Tyneside, Councillor Jim Allan, said, the private sector has no magic wand with which to deliver the same services at the same level but with less money. It does not work like that. Outsourcing just one service would take time. For one, there would be the consultation with the public, which is not happening in North Tyneside, and what about the human resources implications, working with the unions and the tender process? How can all that be done for multiple services in a six-month period?
	Everyone from residents to staff and councillors realises that budget cuts can mean change, but this seems a change too far. The North Tyneside council that I was a councillor on for 15 years was always striving to achieve, always looking forward and always trying to work with its residents in the most positive strategic way, but now our Tory mayor and her cabinet are bowing to the pressures from the coalition Government, taking the easiest way out of managing the huge Government cuts and throwing North Tyneside on the mercy of full market forces.

Justin Tomlinson: I was not intending to speak in this debate, but many hon. Members have highlighted the importance of fairness, so I thought that someone should stand up and highlight the fairness to council tax payers. I speak from experience, having been a councillor for 10 years on Swindon borough council. We took control of that council off the back of a 42% hike in council tax in just three years. When my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) talked about an average Labour council tax rise of just over 10%, I thought, “If only that had been the case!”
	Members have highlighted their concerns about the council tax referendum, but I can assure them that the constituents whom I represented as a councillor and whom I now represent as an MP would have been
	delighted to have had the opportunity to hold the Labour administration to account. We must bear it in mind that those who suffered most at the hands of the council tax hikes were those on fixed incomes, including pensioners.
	I want to talk about the opportunities to give local authorities greater freedom and enable them to address and protect the important front-line services that many Members have highlighted. For example, during my time as a councillor, Labour not only hiked council tax by 42% in three years, but managed to drive down standards until we were the joint worst in the country. The Government inspectors came in and said, “You need to reinvigorate the council. You need to ensure that you have an excellent top management team. You need to go out to market and get the very best council officers available. To do that, you must pay them considerably more money than they are paid now.” The council almost doubled the money on offer and re-employed pretty much the same officers—all paid for by local council tax payers. I welcome the fact, therefore, that the Government will be pulling back on the huge numbers of inspections.
	I welcome developments, including in my constituency, where my chief executive is cutting his own pay for the second year in the row—we are seeing that across the country. We need greater transparency and accountability for the highest earners in the public sector.
	We also saw a great disparity between the national pay settlements, where the Government would award pay rises for public sector workers, but then award the local authorities that process that money with a much smaller local authority settlement. All local authorities were invariably playing catch-up before they had even started the cycle of working out the following year’s council tax.
	We had endless BVP—best value performance—targets. When I first became the lead member for leisure, recreation and culture, I was particularly excited to bestow my unique “Tomlinson vision” of what I wanted to do. However, I was presented with a colourful chart setting out exactly what the Government insisted I should do as the lead member, which bore very little resemblance to the public’s priorities. All that cost considerable amounts of money, as we chased the national—and irrelevant—targets. There was also a need for endless consultations and vanity communications projects, where in some regions we had to go out and spend many thousands of pounds talking to just a handful of people to determine what we should and should not do.
	We need greater transparency in how local authorities spend money, and I had an end-of-term Adjournment debate on that subject. This Government are trying to open up local government finance, so that we can embrace the potential armchair auditors—the hundreds and thousands of people out there who do not have the time to be full-time councillors, but who have good ideas or good experience of how local authorities could save money. I set out some of the challenges that local residents face in identifying financial figures and being able to make suggestions. I said that local authorities should embrace the idea, setting up their own star chambers, incentivising local residents to find savings and sharing those savings with local residents, so that the council can bank half the money. Perhaps the local residents could then suggest which front-line services
	the other half could be spent on improving. I would like to see a lot more of that. I was told that one of the arguments against that idea is that it would cost many local authorities a lot of money to answer such requests and understand whether local residents were right in challenging the figures. However, it is a worry if local authorities do not own their own budgets and are not able easily to answer such requests, because we would expect them to be able to do so.
	A greater priority needs to be placed on capital investment in invest-to-save schemes. As the lead member for leisure, I knew that the majority of the things that we did would end up costing us revenue, which put further pressure on council tax, so we started to prioritise activities such as five-a-side football pitches. We built three 3G—third-generation—football pitches on a four-year payback scheme. They were paid off within 13 months, and then contributed money back into the council tax coffers, as well as providing a brand-new facility for local residents.
	Members have already talked about the need for better procurement and shared services across borders. We were one of the first local authorities to combine the lead for adult social services with the primary care trust, so that there was one chief executive. Rather than having two competing organisations, they were working together. It saved costs and we had just one priority. Finally, the opportunities presented through the business rates scheme and the new homes bonus provide local authorities with an incentive, as they are rewarded for doing the right thing. I remember the number of times that businesses would come to us and say, “You should be doing far more to promote us,” but there was no financial incentive to do so; in fact, sometimes there was a disincentive. However, we now have a real opportunity.
	Although these are challenging times, we must never forget that we are here to represent hard-pressed council tax payers. Despite the challenging figures that people have to find, there are plenty of opportunities to improve front-line services and protect the hard-pressed council tax payer.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) said that all councils start on the same basis, but that is the fundamental problem: they do not. What this Government are doing in the settlement—we also saw this last week, in the Local Government Finance Bill—is rewarding the councils that vote Conservative in the south of England. They are building that into the system, possibly for the next 10 years, because the proposed use of the 2012-13 grant as a baseline for 2013-14 will mean that injustice continuing in years to come.
	What we are basically seeing is an unfair system in which councils in deprived areas—we have heard some examples today, such as Knowsley and others—are paying for more affluent areas, which is the reverse of redistribution. If we look at how the system has been designed, we see three reasons why that is happening. One is the abolition of council tax resource equalisation, which ran from 1993-94 to 2010-11. It took deprivation
	into account, placing councils on a level playing field, yet this Government have torn it up. We saw in last year’s adjustment a cut of £473 million and for the coming year a cut of £515 million. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, some have had a 15% cut in local government expenditure.
	The Government are trying to give the impression to local councils and local people that it has nothing to do with them. Well, it is. Durham, for example, has had to take £125 million out of its budget. The idea that it is possible to do that by cutting the chief executive’s pay is nonsense; if he worked for nothing, it would not chip away much of that. It is all part of a well worked out strategy by the Secretary of State to shift the blame to local councils.
	I spent nearly 11 years in local government, and there was not a single year in which we failed to look for efficiencies. Contrary to what Conservative Members say, most councils do that. The idea that they can be turned around in one year is absolute nonsense, as is the idea that it is possible to avoid front-line service cuts in County Durham by halving the chief executive’s pay or cutting down on the number of pot plants. For the Minister to claim from the Dispatch Box that these cuts can be made in councils like Durham without any effect on front-line services is absolute nonsense. No organisation, let alone a council, could take out such an amount—something like 23% of its budget—without it having any effect.

Steve Rotheram: My hon. Friend will be aware that Liverpool city council is one of the highest ranking in the indices of multiple deprivation, yet it suffered an 8.8% cut worth £91 million last year, it is having a £50 million cut this year and a £25 million cut next year. Can he understand the Minister’s argument that this new methodology will somehow make things fairer?

Kevan Jones: Well, it will not make it fairer; it will make it more unfair. The Secretary of State knows exactly what he is doing politically; he is rewarding the people who vote Conservative.
	The formula grant for children’s services is another element that puts pressure on councils in the north of England, especially if we look at the detail. That grant has been cut, and I have to tell the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole that the number of children in care in councils such as Middlesbrough is huge in comparison with the number in Dorset. The cut thus has a disproportionate effect on councils in County Durham and in other northern cities in comparison with councils in the hon. Lady’s area. Another issue is the damping mechanism. Nine out of 12 councils in the north-east lose out under that process.
	I must take my hat off to the Secretary of State for his clever use of percentages when what we should really look at is cash. When cash is taken into account rather than percentages, we find councils like South Tyneside, Hartlepool and Middlesbrough losing money through the damping mechanism, so that they have to pay to help “deprived” areas like Windsor, Maidenhead, Richmond upon Thames and, my old favourite, Wokingham. Let us compare Hartlepool to Wokingham. Under the damping mechanism, Hartlepool pays to support Wokingham. Hartlepool faces a cut of £142, that is 5.7%, in spending
	per dwelling and then has to provide under the damping mechanism £5—0.2%—for every dwelling, which helps to protect Wokingham. Wokingham faces only a £27 cut per household, or 1.5%—only half what the Minister says is the average.
	We heard it said in last week’s debates on the Local Government Finance Bill that the system is complex and that the Government are simplifying it, but they are not. They are putting in place a mechanism that will reward affluent areas. It takes away the one thing that equalisation did, which was to ensure there was a level playing field. That will no longer be the case under this system. Northern councils such as those mentioned in earlier examples are taking disproportionate cuts as well as having added costs in running their services because of high levels of unemployment, high numbers of individuals needing social care and the numbers of looked-after children. Those services place huge costs on those councils, which other councils do not have.

Derek Twigg: My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Does he recall the Chancellor saying:
	“We are all in this together. I am not going to balance the budget on the backs of the poor”?
	As my hon. Friend has heard tonight in relation to Knowsley, Halton and other areas, that is exactly what the Chancellor is doing—he is hitting the most deprived areas the most.

Kevan Jones: Exactly. We hear a lot of this nonsense and the soundbite that we are all in it together but we are not. The Government are protecting their own affluent areas at the expense of others. I think that under the Thatcher Government, Liverpool was written off at one time, and the current Government are clearly writing off certain areas.
	The other alternative is to raise council tax. We heard earlier the new localisation of business rates being trumpeted as something that will bring in huge amounts of cash, but it is a damn sight easier to raise investment and to attract business to parts of the City of Westminster than it is to parts of Ashington in Northumberland or Seaham in Durham. The ability of councils to attract business will be limited, so the areas that will gain from that change will be those affluent councils. Similarly, the councils that will benefit from the changes regarding the new homes bonus will be those where house building is still going on. The house building market in the north-east is flatlining, thanks to the economic policies of this Government, and people are not building many new houses, so even those areas that have available sites are not going to gain.
	Another issue is the ability of local councils to raise funding through council tax. In the north-east, 50% of properties are in band A, whereas the figure in Surrey is about 2%, so even if there were an equal council tax rise in both areas, Surrey would have a greater ability to raise large amounts of money than the north-east. The difference is quite stark. In addition, there is the problem that is coming down the road with the localisation of council tax benefit, which will come with a 10% cut. That is another cut for councils that have large numbers of people. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) has made the very good point, which I keep reiterating, that people on council tax
	benefit are not all on benefit; many of them are in low-paid work and they will be disproportionately affected by these proposals.
	The Government know exactly what they are doing. They are devolving responsibility to local councils and with it devolving the blame. They are trying to give the impression to local people that they have nothing to do with the cuts that are coming in County Durham and other northern councils because of this mechanism, but they have. Only one person is responsible for this: the Secretary of State.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just point out that the Front-Bench winding-up speeches will begin at 6.27 pm, so we have a little under 14 minutes and two speakers remaining. I know that the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) will be gracious and courteous in wishing to share his time with the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth).

Mike Hancock: I will try to take your lead and be as gracious and courteous as you are, Mr Speaker.
	Once again, I am very disappointed. First, I have to register my interest as an existing and long-serving member of Portsmouth city council. I would have hoped that in the past month or so those Ministers in the Department who have had experience in local government would have been reading and listening to what their former colleagues in local government have been saying to them about the problems with the current settlement and with what is being stored up for the next year or two.
	It was not easy for the Tory leader of Surrey county council to say that Surrey would decline to take the gimmick from the Government to keep the council tax down. I am sure that he did it with a heavy heart, but, as he rightly said—this was recounted again here this afternoon—it is better take the pain when it is evenly spread, and when one is at least in control of it, than to accept a short-term gain only to experience a very long-term pain. I think that there is something seriously wrong when a Minister, such as the Minister who opened today’s debate, can give no explanation whatsoever, and can offer no hope to local authorities such as my own which accepted the 2.5% gimmick cut. I tried to persuade my colleagues not to do it, but they chose to take the opposite view.
	For us, that will pose a real problem. In my local authority, the shunted costs—the responsibilities that are being pushed down to us—amount to £1.8 million. That is the extra sum that we shall have to find to pay for services for which we never had to budget before. Examples that have been given are the full recovery of the cost of court proceedings, discretionary housing benefit payments, a 50% cut in the community safety grant, section 117 cases, concessionary fares, what is described as
	“Concessionary Fares Increase Care of New Back Office System”
	—which has been demanded by the Department for Transport—and the youth justice system. That £1.8 million comes on top of a 10% cut.
	I was disappointed when the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) asked whether it would be easier to explain all this in terms of percentages. I do not care how people explain it. It is painful, difficult and awkward for local authorities to do anything, and they have not acted irresponsibly. The days when Ministers were able to cite the irresponsible council are long gone. As was pointed out earlier, no council has avoided making efficiency savings. It is in our interest to make such savings, and we have tried desperately hard to make them.

David Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mike Hancock: Yes, but my hon. Friend must be very quick.

David Ward: I will be.
	My hon. Friend has mentioned percentages. I hope he agrees that the real issue is gearing. A 10% cut in an authority with an 80% gearing of formula grant to the rest of its funding will mean an 8% reduction in its overall budget, whereas if only 20% of an authority’s funding comes from formula grant, it will experience a reduction of only 2%. That is the big issue.

Mike Hancock: My hon. Friend’s point is well made, but it is falling on deaf ears. It has been made time and time again. It was made last year, for instance. It is unfortunate that no one is listening, and it is very unfair and very disrespectful to Members who serve in local government. Next year, Tory councillors who will be defending their seats in the county council elections will hope against hope that the Government will pull some sort of rabbit out of the hat to safeguard them from having to impose pretty horrendous council tax rises.
	This afternoon’s debate is a fait accompli. We shall vote either for or against the motion. I shall vote against it, and I hope that my colleagues who have served or are still serving in local government will do so as well, because this is not doing the cause of local government and local democracy any good. For Ministers not to be able to answer even the simplest, most fundamental question about where we go from here is totally unacceptable and unfair. As Members have said repeatedly, this is shifting the blame. It means more responsibility, fewer resources, and indeed more blame—not for Government, but for local government.

George Howarth: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock). I think I said that in a debate about a week ago. I meant it then, and I mean it now. The Government really should listen to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, given his long experience of local government and of the problems that he has just described.
	The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) cautioned the Government against blocking in the damping system. I shall make the opposite point, however. The Minister currently on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), has a long background in local government
	and understands why arrangements such as floors, ceilings and damping are put in place. Unless that is locked in, Knowsley, which is already suffering very badly from the current system, stands to lose £6 million. I therefore hope the Government give serious consideration to locking in that system—and in particular to locking in the floor, not least because it is especially important for Knowsley.
	In order to illustrate the importance of this point, we have to mention the figures. Last year, Knowsley’s cut in revenue spending per head of population was already £156, compared with the average across England of £49.18. The added effect of this settlement will make that problem even more serious.
	Let me give one more set of statistics before I address the substance of my argument. SIGOMA—the special interest group of municipal authorities—represents the local authorities of several Members, and my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary prayed it in aid earlier. It tells a story about funding growth. The lowest ranking local authorities over the period it addresses are Liverpool with growth of 21.9%, Knowsley with 21.9%, Bury with 21%, Wirral with 21% and South Tyneside with 22.7%. These statistics are pretty meaningless unless we know what to compare them with. Perhaps the best comparison is with those authorities that will have the greatest growth. They are the City of London with a staggering 139.6%, Westminster with 90.7%, Hillingdon with 40.6%, Camden with 37.5% and—guess what—Kensington and Chelsea with 34.5%. That cannot be fair.
	The Minister who opened the debate, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), engaged in quite a bit of sophistry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) exposed, as it were, the raw nerve in his argument. Astonishingly, the Minister argued that a local authority with high need will probably already have a high level of grant and therefore should expect to have more grant cut in the future. I do not think there is a better term to describe that argument than “sophistry.”
	The Minister also said there was plenty of room for cuts and for reform and changes to the system. He stated that we could improve things and that lots of money would be saved. Specifically, he said he wanted to cut the red tape in tendering. The Minister is not in his place at present, but no doubt he will return at some point in the proceedings. I do not know whether he has ever sat in on a local authority tender-opening process, and I certainly do not know what he is thinking about when he refers to red tape in that regard. As several other Members present will be able to confirm, this is what happens in such a tendering process: people go into a room, the envelopes are opened, and the amount of money each contractor has tendered for the job is read out, and in the end, unless there is good reason to do otherwise, the process concludes with the declaration, “We accept tender X”—or Y or Z—“subject to checking.” The red tape is contained in precisely that term: “subject to checking.” The checking involves council officers working out whether the firm involved can do the job and has the resources to ensure that it is completed. That is what the red tape, on which we are going to save millions of pounds, consists of.

Mike Hancock: I was confused when that list was being read out. Was the right hon. Gentleman as confused as I was when it was said that local authorities should do more about procurement fraud? Was it seriously being suggested that when local authorities know about such fraud, they do nothing about it? That was mind-boggling.

George Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but the point is that unless there is a rigorous, properly policed tendering process, the potential for fraud is even greater.
	I will conclude as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) has plenty more to say. Whatever decision my Front-Bench colleagues reached, given the extent to which this motion discriminates against local authorities such as Knowsley, there is no way I could support it today. I am happy to join them in the Lobby because this is a despicable measure, and I suspect that the Under-Secretary, in his quiet moments—if there are any—feels the same as I do.

Helen Jones: We have heard numerous examples of the damage being inflicted on local communities by the Government’s slash and burn approach to local authority spending. It has inflicted on councils larger cuts than any Government Department has taken, without planning or looking at the effect on individuals, and even without any thought of the longer-term economic consequences.
	My hon. Friends have highlighted the situation very well. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) talked about front-loading of the cuts making it impossible to plan, and the uncertainty local councils face. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) gave powerful examples of what is happening, and talked about the cuts in school food provision and the increase in home care charges. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) talked about the injustice of the cuts to front-line services in his area, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), speaking for one of the most deprived authorities in the country, highlighted how the cuts are being inflicted on the poorest communities. All have shown how people are having to live with the harsh realities of life under this Government.
	Of course, the Government, far from trying to hide the fact that they are hitting the poorest most, are quite up-front about it. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), in a quote he should be reminded of again and again, said:
	“Those in greatest need ultimately bear the burden of paying off the debt”.—[Official Report, 10 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 450.]
	That’s it then—not the bankers, not the millionaires in the Cabinet; the poorest pay the price. Same old Tories, and, apart from the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock), same old Lib Dems: always telling us they are going to do “something”—we know not what—and then trooping through the Lobby desperate to hang on to their chance of a ministerial car. It is said that it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world—but for a Honda Civic? Really! Once again, we
	see the poorest paying the price and, in the second year of this settlement, the damage being inflicted on the most vulnerable people.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) reminded us, the Government began with cuts in the working neighbourhoods fund and the Supporting People grant, which helped 1 million people, including victims of domestic violence and people with mental health problems. The Government have gone on to entrench that unfairness in the system and so we see, for example, that by the end of the two-year period Liverpool will have lost £235 per person in spending power, Manchester’s figure will be £186, Birmingham’s will be £155 and Nottingham’s will be £147. Those are the cities that the Government say are going to lead our economic revival. It is not even a case of one half of the Government not knowing what the other half is doing, because one half of the Department does not know what the other half of the Department is doing either.
	Let us have a look at what happens in other authority areas. Wokingham council, our favourite authority, actually gains overall from this settlement. Dorset, taken as a whole, has a cut of 10p per person, while the figure for Richmond upon Thames is 80p and the figure for the Windsor and Maidenhead authority is a massive, by its standards, £2.20. What do many of those authorities have in common? They contain the constituencies of Cabinet Ministers. Does that not make into nonsense this statement from the Deputy Prime Minister:
	“Our core aim is to hard-wire fairness back into national life”?
	Tell that to the people who have lost their Sure Start programmes, and to the elderly people and disabled people who are paying more for home care or who are not getting that care at all because the eligibility criteria have changed.

Bill Esterson: rose —

Helen Jones: My hon. Friend will have to forgive me for not giving way, but we are short on time.
	Tell that to the people whose community centres, libraries and day centres have closed. The truth, which Government Members have to face, is very simple: people who are wealthy can buy themselves out of those cuts, because they can pay for care and buy their books, but the people the cuts hit most are those who cannot do that. I am talking about the people who have paid their taxes all their life and then find that they cannot get care in their old age and that their sons and daughters are caught between trying to look after them, to work and to look after their children. I am talking about the families on low wages who go out to work every day and want their children to get on but cannot afford to buy all the books they would like and are dependent on their libraries. [Interruption.] I hear the muttering from the Parliamentary Private Secretaries and I know that the Tories are going to say, “We do not do this because we want to, but because we have to.” Let us start nailing that myth, shall we?
	In the year from autumn 2009 to autumn 2010 the economy grew at 3.9% and unemployment was falling. So successful have the Tories been that the economy is now in negative growth, the level of unemployment is nearly 2.7 million and, scandalously, one in five of our young people is unemployed—and borrowing is increasing.
	The Government’s approach has not worked. They could, of course, have worked with local authorities on long-term savings and they could have assisted local authorities to use their spending power to help tackle those problems. Before they started their cuts, the local authority procurement budget was £34.2 billion, most of which was spent with small and medium-sized firms. Councils such as Tameside—it did this through its Tameside investment project—were using their purchasing power not only to build new schools, but to assist local firms; it put £15 million into local companies.

Andrew Gwynne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning “Tameside Works First”, the initiative of my local authority. Is she also aware that Tameside council had 700 young people on the future jobs fund, which was scrapped by this Government?

Helen Jones: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I shall be dealing with that matter in a moment. The Government could have worked with local authorities to use that purchasing power, but what they failed to understand was that when it is cut too far, too fast, those local companies do not expand—they contract or go bust. The Government, while taking that approach, have taken away every lever local authorities had to help their local economies. Nottingham alone lost £6.5 million from the scrapping of the future jobs fund. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish has mentioned Tameside—[ Interruption. ] If the Minister wants to intervene, I will be happy to let him.

Grant Shapps: Will the hon. Lady repeat something we heard for the first time in the Chamber a couple of hours ago, which is that those on the Front Bench deplore the fact that Nottingham city council will not publish its expenditure online?

Helen Jones: We believe that all councils should publish their expenditure and we would like the DCLG to set an example by not being so far behind the curve in publishing its expenditure, too.
	The Government took away the community growth fund and abolished regional development agencies. Scandalously, they will not even let local authorities participate in the Work programme so that the very people who understand their local communities best and have long-term relationships with local businesses are excluded from it. That is the problem with this settlement. It is sending local areas, many of them the most deprived in the country, into a spiral of decline. People are facing cuts to services, increases in charges and a loss of jobs.
	Some 129,000 local government jobs have already gone and more than 700,000 are likely to go. What happens then? Those people cannot spend money in the local economy, so private businesses lose revenue and as they suffer they lay people off. Local councils are locked in a spiral of more and more demands on their services and less and less revenue. That is why we oppose this settlement. It is unfair, it hits the poorest most and, most of all, it is economically illiterate. I urge my hon. Friends to oppose it tonight.

Bob Neill: The debate has at times been a little like my experience in local government since I was first elected in 1974. There have been some serious and important contributions, some genuine commitment, and passages—particularly towards the end—of the utterly surreal. Towards the end of my local government career, I was dealing with Mr Ken Livingstone, and I have just listened to the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) summing up—surrealism comes at the end. I am afraid that the official Opposition throw away any sense of credibility when they resort to the sort of rant that misses the fundamental reason why the tough settlement—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) and others said that it is tough, which I accept, and the Government have never pretended that it is anything else—is necessary.
	Why is it, sadly, necessary to have these reductions in public spending? Why does local government, as 25% of public spending, have to bear a share? The Labour party bankrupted the country. Its shameful failure has made every reduction necessary and the mealy-mouthed and, to many people in local government, distasteful unwillingness to accept responsibility condemns Labour Members from their own mouths. It condemns them to having no credibility and it is why, ultimately, they see the results they do in the opinion polls. It is no good blaming their leader, as it is not just that they do not listen to him but that nobody is listening to them. It is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition apparently recognises that there must be deficit reduction because of the mess that his Government left, and the shadow Chancellor appears to agree with that—it is about the only thing they do agree on, of course—but it never permeates down, as far as I can see, to the rest of the shadow Cabinet, never mind to anybody else. We have heard not a word about what the Labour party would have done to help local government in dealing with the inheritance that it left.
	The coalition Government have faced up to economic necessity and have also given progressive, sensible tools to help local government through the immediate situation and out of it. The Government inherited the formula brought in by Labour towards the end of its period in government. We have had that formula grant for a long time and it has always, as we know, contained an element of ministerial discretion. The lack of transparency in how it operated quite rightly leads my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and others to say that some people had suspicions about the objectiveness with which Labour used that formula.
	Instead, what we have done is to increase the weighting given to the needs element in the formula for this year’s settlement to help those most in need, and for the longer term to move towards a more transparent system whereby local authorities can retain growth in the business rate and reward those who are entrepreneurial and go-ahead and want to do the best for their areas, rather than saying, “We must be locked for ever in a counsel of despair”, which involves grant dependency. One of the saddest aspects of this debate is the number of Opposition Members who have experience in local government but
	who are locked into that counsel of despair because they do not have enough faith in their own people and those who work for them.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Bob Neill: I shall give way once and once only, to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth).

George Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister. He is making a speech about local government finance. Has he noticed that he has not mentioned a single figure yet?

Bob Neill: Since the settlement is set out in reams of paper, I need not trouble the right hon. Gentleman too much with that, though he might like to know that the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), I regret to say, fell—unintentionally, I am sure—into error in his point about expenditure. The disabled facilities grant has in fact been increased this year, as it was last year. It was increased by a further £20 million. It has gone up from £167 million to £187 million, and it will go up to £207 million next year.
	It is worth saying that central Government are providing £27.8 billion in all by way of formula grant to local authorities. In addition there are further specific grants. It is also worth saying, if the right hon. Member for Knowsley would like some figures, that we are providing a further £20 million in transition grant this year. That makes up for the slack in budgets that came when the Labour Government brought working neighbourhoods funds to an end, quite deliberately and in a planned fashion.

Brandon Lewis: rose—

Bob Neill: I will give way just once, then I must make progress.

Brandon Lewis: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that one of the figures that is most important to the people whom we are here to represent is the one that relates to their council tax? The Government have allowed it to be frozen for a second year, which is a vast improvement on the years of multiple increases under the previous Government.

Bob Neill: It is ironic that we heard very little about whether the Opposition will encourage Labour councils to take the council tax freeze. I hope they will. Following the damascene conversion of the shadow Secretary of State to condemning the lack of transparency of Nottingham city council, I hope he will say that whatever the Opposition think about the Government overall, it is necessary above all to protect council tax payers and hard-pressed families and to adopt the council tax freeze.
	Many authorities are doing that and they are using the breathing space. We have said that this year, because of the economic mess that we inherited, it is a one-year payment. Last year’s payment will be throughout the spending period. It gives local authorities a breathing space in which to manage the reconfiguration of their services. Good authorities are doing that.
	Better procurement is an important issue and it should not be sneered at, as some hon. Members did. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole is right to remind people that smaller authorities in rural areas often have less flexibility in managing budget pressures than larger authorities. We must recognise, therefore, that we cannot necessarily draw comparisons. Our system specifically builds in fairness, not only because we have increased the needs element in the formula—I know it is a shock to Opposition Members, because they have the intellectual arrogance to think that only they have a conception of fairness—that they have a monopoly on the subject.
	That is the fundamental arrogance that got Labour into opposition after all those years. The Opposition promised the electorate in their 1997 manifesto that they would hand back the business rate to councils, and they spent 13 years not doing that. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central said that he wanted certainty. Did it take him 13 years to be certain that he would not do it? That is what he managed to do. Instead, the coalition is getting on with it. Although it is not easy to fix a broken system, the coalition is making an honest stab, and local government deserves—

Derek Twigg: rose—

Bob Neill: I have given way twice already and made it clear that I will not do so again. I am sorry, but I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get too worked up about it. I want to be fair to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central by responding to his other specific point.
	With regard to the top-slicing of the local authority central services equivalent grant, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will of course make an announcement in due course. As always, that is being considered through discussions between Government Departments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Secretary of State, in making his decisions, has taken note of a number of recommendations and concerns raised by local authorities. We must strike a fair balance in that regard and will do so. In relation to pooling and whether there will be a surplus, I think that—

Derek Twigg: Will the Minister give way?

Bob Neill: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of letting me answer his party’s spokesman.
	The right hon. Gentleman referred to pooling, but I think that he meant the provisions under the Local Government Finance Act 1988 by which the totality of the money raised by the national non-domestic rate, the business rate, must be returned to local government. That continues to be the case. In this year, when the totality of non-domestic rate raised was more than the formula grant, the rest was returned by way of grant to local authorities outside formula grant, and that remains an option. Everything comes back to local government one way or the other, and that is the statutory requirement that the Government have consistently met.
	The right hon. Members for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and for Leeds Central asked about referendums and what does and does not qualify. Referendum provisions apply to the billing authority in a two-tier area—a district or unitary council or a London borough—and to major precepting authorities: a county
	council, police authority or fire authority. In each case it is their own element that is subject to the referendum, so the district council cannot be forced into a referendum because of an increase by the county council, or vice versa. When we talk about levies, we are not talking about precepts, as the right hon. Member for Leeds Central knows, but about the rather more technical payments that we generally get from passenger transport authorities or drainage boards—
	Six hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion relating to Police, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Order, 6 February).
	Question agreed to.
	Resolved ,
	That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2012-13, which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
	The Deputy Speaker then put the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, 6 February)

Motion made, and Question put,
	That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2012-13 (HC 1801), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.—[Robert Neill. ]
	The House divided:
	Ayes 292, Noes 213.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Alun Michael: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In his reply to me this afternoon, the Prime Minister claimed that a third of Welsh patients are waiting more than 18 weeks for treatment, when it is only a fifth, and that 27% of patients are waiting for more than six weeks for direct access to diagnostics, when it is only 18%. Those are not even the targets that the NHS in Wales works towards, so the whole basis for comparison was wrong. As I am sure that the Prime Minister would not wish to mislead the House or to leave such an inaccuracy uncorrected, however inadvertently, will you say whether he has requested the opportunity to come back to the House and put matters right, as he should?

Dawn Primarolo: I have had no such notification. As an experienced Member of this House, the right hon. Gentleman will know that, strictly speaking, that was not a point of order. He has got his views on the record and I am sure that he will pursue the point if he feels that he needs to.
	I now have to announce the results of Divisions deferred from previous days. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Manchester, the Ayes were 315 and the Noes were 201, so the Question was agreed
	to. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Newcastle upon Tyne, the Ayes were 317 and the Noes were 201, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Sheffield, the Ayes were 316 and the Noes were 201, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Coventry, the Ayes were 314 and the Noes were 201, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Wakefield, the Ayes were 316 and the Noes were 201, so the Question was agreed to.
	On the motion relating to broadcasting, the Ayes were 326 and the Noes were 198, so the Question was agreed to. On the motion relating to electronic communications, the Ayes were 325 and the Noes were 198, so the Question was agreed to.
	[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Proposed Closure of Rio Tinto Alcan, Lynemouth

Ian Lavery: I rise to present a petition from the residents of south-east Northumberland relating to the proposed closure of the Rio Tinto Alcan aluminium smelter in my constituency.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of south East Northumberland,
	Declares that the Petitioners are opposed to the proposed closure of Rio Tinto Alcan, Lynemouth.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Rio Tinto Alcan, Lynemouth and to support the workforce and those involved in the supply chain.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001006]

Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Newmark.)

Tessa Munt: I asked for this debate because for nearly 12 months I have been questioning the Department of Health about why the latest radiotherapy techniques and equipment to treat cancer patients are not being used by our NHS. I have pressed hard on this subject because, like Cancer Care UK and many other respected organisations, I believe radiotherapy is underused in the front line for curing cancer.
	This country has a history and a habit of resorting to pumping cancer patients full of pharmaceuticals. Do not get me wrong, I am not knocking cancer drugs—many are highly effective and a great help to patients, and many cancer patients are alive today thanks to them. However, a lot of those drugs also have some pretty horrific side effects, and patients are often reluctant to take them for that reason. So in reality, throughout the latter part of the last century, heavy doses of drugs or death were almost the only choices that cancer patients had.
	Although there has been plentiful use of drugs throughout the last 60 years, the uptake of radiotherapy as a front-line treatment has been slow. Radiologists have told me that one reason for that is they have not been as successful at lobbying as the pharmaceutical companies, but that is a matter for another debate. The main reason why there was resistance to using radiotherapy in the past was its method of delivery—single large beams of radiation being fired into the body to ensure that the tumour at which they were aimed was radiated. Unfortunately, those large beams also radiated an awful lot of healthy tissue around a tumour, especially if the tumour was moving, and frequently caused more damage than good. Patients often complained that the side effects of radiotherapy were worse than the cancer.
	During this century, there have been huge advances in the delivery and accuracy of radiotherapy treatment. Around the world, radiosurgery is being used increasingly to cure cancer as a front-line treatment. Stereotactic body radiotherapy treatment, or SBRT, uses multiple very fine beams of radiation locked directly on to just the tumour. With some new technologies the beams move as the tumour moves, ensuring that the surrounding healthy tissue is not harmed and only the tumour is radiated.
	Unfortunately, in the UK we are failing to embrace the new technologies that allow for the effective use of SBRT to treat cancer patients. We are falling behind both Europe and the US. On 22 November last year, I asked the Secretary of State for Health in the Chamber how many radiotherapy centres in this country were providing SBRT to cancer patients. When he told me the figure was 25%, I must admit to having been surprised—not as surprised, I would add, as some of the medical professionals I know, who found the figure unbelievable, but that was what he said.
	Within a few days, the cancer tsar repeated that same figure in a letter to The Times. Thus, 25% suddenly became received wisdom for the standard of provision of SBRT in England. I therefore asked the Secretary of State in a written question on what evidence he had
	based his statement. “Not really sure,” was the reply. The evidence was based on an “informal study” conducted by the National Cancer Action Team. NCAT also said it believed there were more than 20 machines in the country that could deliver SBRT.
	I am not a fan of Government policy making based on “informal studies” and vague beliefs, so I conducted my own, very formal study on the availability of SBRT in the UK. Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act, I wrote to every hospital in the country that provides radiotherapy and asked each a series of questions about its ability to deliver SBRT. I am pleased to say that 57 replied—all but the Royal Shrewsbury hospital—and very helpful they were too.
	For the record, I shall share the data with the Minister, so he can pass them on to the Secretary of State. In 2011, only seven centres in England and one in Scotland treated cancer patients with SBRT. There were no centres in Wales or Northern Ireland. Only four of the centres conducted a large enough number of procedures to comply with national radiotherapy implementation group recommendations. Therefore, 14% offer SBRT and just 8% are compliant. The total number of patients treated in those centres was just 323. That figure is not surprising when we consider that, according to the hospitals, there are only seven machines in the country capable of delivering SBRT—a good deal fewer than the number NCAT believes there are.
	The Minister will not be surprised that my questioning did not stop there. I had also asked what indications the centres treated with SBRT. The data became even more interesting. Those centres using the Elekta or Varian systems treated only lung cancer. Centres using the CyberKnife system treated lung cancer, but they also treated liver, prostate, spine, breast, myeloma, sarcoma, head and neck, and ovarian cancers.
	I asked the centres what their estimates for SBRT treatment in 2012 were. Again, they were very helpful in providing that information, and I place on record my gratitude to them for it. The centres estimate that approximately 725 procedures will take place in hospitals planning SBRT programmes for this year: 48 using the Varian system; 195 using the Elekta system; and 385 using CyberKnife system. The remaining 97 procedures were claimed as “estimates” by centres that have not conducted any SBRT in the past, and which do not appear—from their responses—to have suitable equipment for conducting such procedures.
	I must admit that I found that last statistic, and the fact that only four centres conducted the number of procedures necessary to comply with the NRIG recommendations, very alarming. I, for one, would not wish to be treated at a centre where the team carries out only half a dozen procedures each year. How can it possibly have any expertise in such a complex treatment process if the staff so rarely conduct the procedure? For the Minister to allow that to continue would be contrary to the aims of the new Health and Social Care Bill and all that the Secretary of State has said about concentrating resources in centres of excellence to improve patient outcomes.
	A number of other things alarmed me when I read the returns from the centres. On numerous occasions, the Minister has assured me that work is in hand by NCAT to establish a national tariff, or price tag, for SBRT, and yet, while the centres tell me they would
	welcome a national tariff, they also tell me that no progress is being made towards it. In fact, the vast majority have not even been consulted about establishing one. One of the most well known and respected centres has gone further, and said that
	“a national radiotherapy tariff without SBRT would be seriously flawed and its fitness for purpose questionable.”
	Will the Minister comment on that?

Naomi Long: The hon. Lady is aware of a case involving Brian Withers, my constituent. He has been able to access the treatment, but has had to self-fund to do so. One reason it was not included in his clinical pathway was that it was argued that there was no clinical trial evidence for it in his situation. Does she agree that part of the problem is that SBRT is treated as a novel treatment for cancer as opposed to the development of an existing one? Therefore, without the tariff, people from other regions will not be able to access it on a routine basis.

Tessa Munt: I could not agree more. As the hon. Lady and others are well aware, I have spoken with her constituent, Mr Withers, and it is clear that radiosurgery is a well-established and proven therapy—it is just that we have to wait to get it.
	In an answer to a parliamentary question, I was told that a price tag would not be set up until 2014. NCAT must be the only organisation in the NHS that believes it should take three years from the point that an esteemed committee recommends a national tariff until one can be implemented. From what they tell me, the centres do not believe it, and I do not believe it, and I do not think that the Minister believes it. The question of establishing an SBRT tariff, as recommended in the report from NRIG last April, is not just a question of the administration involved in setting up some codes so that the NHS can cost it; this lack of tariff has a direct impact on cancer patients’ lives.
	Let me tell the Minister about my friend Kerry Dunn, a 42-year-old mother from Somerset who was diagnosed with cancer. Last September, her clinicians in Bristol concluded that the only treatment available that could save her life was SBRT on CyberKnife. The CyberKnife experts in London agreed. Her clinicians applied for funding from North Somerset primary care trust, but it took them two months before it refused. It said no because, according to it, there was not enough evidence to suggest that CyberKnife would work.
	It is important that the Minister fully understands the train of events in this case. Kerry Dunn’s clinician in Bristol, one of the leading oncologists in the country, believed that CyberKnife could treat her, and the clinicians in London, who routinely use CyberKnife to treat cancer, said that they could treat her, but the bean-counters on North Somerset PCT thought otherwise. Kerry Dunn told me what had happened at the beginning of December. She and her family were in absolute despair over this decision. Once I had contacted North Somerset PCT and after the local press had, separately, taken an interest in her case, the PCT allowed Kerry Dunn to appeal its decision. Three weeks after the first decision, the PCT changed its mind and agreed her funding for CyberKnife.
	If Members were expecting a happy ending to this story, I am sorry to disappoint them. Kerry went straight back to the CyberKnife people in London, but her tumour had grown so much that they could no longer treat her. Kerry and her family now face an uncertain future. Three months earlier, there was considerable hope that she would beat her cancer.
	The Minister will know as well as I do that if the NRIG report had been implemented last April and an SBRT tariff set at that time, North Somerset PCT would not have delayed approval for Kerry’s treatment and she would be a much healthier woman than she is today. Over the past 12 months, the Department of Health has painted a very different picture of the provision of SBRT in the NHS. I must say to the Minister that I am shocked by the disparities between what the Secretary of State has told me and what all the hospitals have told me in answer to my freedom of information requests. Knowing the Minister as well as I do, I trust that it has more to do with his officials keeping him in the dark than their misleading hon. Members.
	In conclusion, I would like some answers from the Minister today. Will he instruct the National Cancer Action Team to conduct a full review of the SBRT facilities available in the NHS? That review should establish whether hospitals are using technology that is fit for purpose and can treat a wide range of tumours with SBRT, and whether hospitals are conducting the number of procedures needed to comply with the NRIG recommendations. Will he commit to speeding up the process of establishing an SBRT tariff in line with the NRIG recommendations, and will he start immediately by asking NCAT to establish a costing code? Finally, I would like a commitment from him to investigate why decisions to fund SBRT by PCTs can ignore clinical opinions of medical professionals when assessing the need for treatment for people such as Kerry Dunn.

Grahame Morris: I pay tribute to and congratulate the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate. I want to put on the record the appreciation of myself and the whole House for the work that she has done in this important area.
	Last August, the Department of Health released the first ever England-wide analysis of patient access to radiotherapy treatment. For those of us who represent constituencies outside London and the south-east, the results were shocking. The disparity in treatment levels for cancer patients living in and around London, compared with the rest of the country, is nothing short of disgraceful. Access to advanced radiotherapy should not be a postcode lottery. The data on each of England’s 28 cancer networks show that the further someone moves away from London, the smaller their chance is of receiving radiotherapy. North-west London tops the list, with radiotherapy provision at 94%, whereas the north-east—my region—came last, at 27%. In fact, the bottom five networks were all north of the River Trent.

Jim Shannon: The benefits of SBRT are well proven in many cases and clear in numerous cases. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it should be available more extensively across the whole of the NHS, and that it is time for the Minister to work
	alongside the devolved Administrations to ensure that the treatment is available for patients in Northern Ireland, as well as other parts of the United Kingdom?

Grahame Morris: Absolutely. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I agree completely. All 28 cancer networks should have equal access to this advanced radiotherapy.
	In practical terms, cancer patients in the Minister’s London constituency are three times more likely to receive the radiotherapy treatment that they need than those residing in northern England and twice as likely as those living in the south-west of England. Believe it or not, however, when the general radiotherapy dataset is analysed further—by that I mean looking at radiotherapy centres offering conventional radiotherapy and those offering the more effective SBRT—the picture is far worse.
	The conventional method of radiotherapy delivery is unable to distinguish between healthy and unhealthy tissue, so the treatment is delivered in short doses—often every day for four or five weeks—to avoid too much damage to the healthy tissue. As the hon. Member for Wells said, SBRT uses small, multiple and highly focused beams of energy to deliver radiation directly to the tumour, ensuring that a minimal dose is received by the surrounding healthy tissue. Consequently, there are little or no treatment-related side effects. SBRT allows the patient to be treated over five days, as opposed to five weeks, as with conventional radiotherapy. Because of its accuracy, SBRT can be used to treat tumours that might be surgically inaccessible or in close proximity to critical organs of the body, such as the heart.
	When we look at the postcode lottery that the dataset report presents, we should also ask where SBRT is available and where it is not. The Minister must understand how important the comparison is. For cancer patients in my constituency, the difference between having access to SBRT and having access to conventional radiotherapy—for prostate cancer, for example—is a 50-mile car journey every day for five weeks and the treatment lasting just five days, with a rapid return to normal life. As well as the benefits to the individual, the cost savings to the NHS of using SBRT compared with conventional radiotherapy are obvious for all to see.
	Like the hon. Lady, I, too, was approached, just before Christmas, by a constituent whose cancer needed SBRT. His tumour could be treated only using the accuracy of the robotic CyberKnife system, but there are only three CyberKnife systems in the NHS, and they are all in London. However, thanks to the incredible co-operation of my constituents’ clinicians and the clinicians from St Bartholomew’s hospital in London, as well as the understanding of County Durham PCT—the commissioners, who, in a timely fashion, agreed funding —he starts his treatment here in London in two weeks. My constituent is very happy that he is set to receive the treatment in an NHS hospital, but is it not a scandal that he has to travel more than 260 miles to do so? What is equally scandalous is that the reason why there are only three CyberKnife systems in NHS hospitals is that those hospitals needed to raise the money to purchase them from charitable donations. I have since learned that in Birmingham, as well as in Newcastle, in my region, the Bear appeal is seeking to raise the money for a CyberKnife system from charitable sources.
	What an indictment of the NHS under this coalition government! The NHS should not have to go begging for charitable funds to buy the latest life-saving equipment, especially when we know that the Department of Health is currently holding back £300 million in capital allocations, in Whitehall coffers. This resource is for capital equipment, but is not given to the hospitals in regions like the north-east where it is most needed. If the Minister is serious about reducing health inequalities in the north-east, and, indeed, in the south-west, we should have this equipment and not be left to linger at the bottom of the radiotherapy dataset, which the Minister himself said is the benchmark for future provision. I ask the Minister to make a commitment to investing some of this £300 million in the capital equipment needed to reduce these disparities in the provision of radiotherapy in general and SBRT in particular.

Paul Burstow: We have had a good debate so far, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) on securing it and on providing an opportunity for us to draw attention to radiotherapy services in the NHS. I want to try to answer as many questions as I can. I understand that my hon. Friend will meet Department officials to discuss some of her concerns further. I hope that if any issues are not covered, they can be explored further there.
	Radiotherapy is an extremely important form of treatment for cancer, which often does not get the attention it deserves. This debate has, I think, helped in that regard. It is more targeted than chemotherapy and less invasive than surgery, with new, faster and more precise technologies reducing side-effects and improving outcomes for patients. Radiotherapy is a significant component in the treatment of 40% of patients cured of cancer and for 16% of cures overall. It is also extremely cost-effective in comparison to other curative cancer treatments. Spending is at around £325 million a year—just 5% of the total spend on cancer.
	For these reasons, I very much welcome the opportunity presented by this debate to correct a number of inaccuracies that have appeared in the press on this subject. Claims have been made that patients are being denied life-saving treatments because of the lack of access to CyberKnife. Those claims are both inaccurate and alarming, and I think they must cause great anxiety to patients. The truth is that CyberKnife is not a form of treatment, but a brand name of a particular type of equipment that delivers stereotactic body radiotherapy or SBRT. It is not the only technology available, as I shall explain further in a moment.
	My hon. Friend talked about the figures, and I repeat the fact that one in four radiotherapy centres currently has equipment—not CyberKnife in every case—that is capable of providing SBRT. I understand, and this bears out my hon. Friend’s figures—

Grahame Morris: Will the Minister give way?

Paul Burstow: No. Many points have been put to me, and to be fair, I now need to respond to them.
	Currently, eight centres are active in providing these services, but I recognise and appreciate the work my hon. Friend has done, and we will certainly need to review carefully the information she has presented tonight.
	CyberKnife can deliver only SBRT and cannot deliver conventional radiotherapy. Large, expensive radiotherapy delivery systems such as these are purchased by public tender. After vigorous and rigorous evaluation of the many different systems available to deliver this treatment, many hospitals around the country have chosen systems provided by other manufacturers, as they enable them to provide flexible, accurate and cost-effective radiotherapy and radio-surgery services. The promotion of CyberKnife over other alternatives does a disservice to other manufacturers that are successful in providing equipment to trusts, and distorts the nature of the debate.
	Let me be clear: timely access to high-quality radiotherapy for cancer patients in this country should improve cancer outcomes and survival. That is why we have made a commitment to expand radiotherapy capacity by investing about £150 million more over the next four years. That will increase the utilisation of existing equipment, support additional services and ensure that all high-priority patients with a need for proton-beam therapy get access to it abroad.
	Significant progress has been made in improving radiotherapy services since the publication of the National Radiotherapy Advisory Group report in 2007. The collection of the radiotherapy dataset, which the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) talked about, has enabled us to establish more accurately than ever before the measure of the number of patients being treated with radiotherapy, and to identify and address unacceptable and inexplicable variations around the country. Almost all patients referred for radiotherapy treatment receive that treatment within the waiting time standards. This improvement in waiting times, compared with historical waiting times, saves lives each year. New modelling tools have been developed that allow local services to model the needs of their populations and to predict demand and ensure that they have capacity to treat all patients who will benefit from the treatment without unnecessary delay as demand changes over the years.
	However, there can be absolutely no room for complacency, and we realise that more work needs to be done to identify why the variations that the hon. Member for Easington has talked about in terms of referral rates in some parts of the country have existed. The dataset shows that some variations in access rates between cancer networks persist, and there is currently lower uptake in certain parts of the north that cannot be explained by variations in cancer incidence. That new dataset allows local commissioners to examine their referral practices in detail, and I understand that networks in the north-east are looking at capacity and travel times to start to address the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the House tonight.
	Access to advanced radiotherapy techniques needs to be improved, particularly intensity modulated radiotherapy. Experts estimate that around a third of all treatments given with the intention of cure should be delivered by IMRT. Some centres are already delivering at that rate,
	but many are far below it. All centres have equipment that is capable of delivering that technique and a national training programme has been rolled out. We now need to ensure that IMRT, as well as image guided radiotherapy, is offered to all patients who might benefit.
	As we have heard, radiotherapy treatment involves the delivery of a dose of radiation to a cancer tumour. That dose is delivered to each patient in fractions or treatments and the number of fractions delivered varies with the type of cancer. The ultimate goal in radiotherapy is to deliver the treatment to the tumour with pinpoint accuracy, thus sparing surrounding tissue and requiring as few fractions, or treatments, as possible—in other words, to treat and cure more cancers with shorter courses of radiotherapy and fewer side effects. For that reason, radiotherapy is continuously evolving with innovations and the development of new techniques and technologies that move us increasingly closer to that goal, but those new developments need to be evaluated in clinical studies.
	It is a challenge for providers and commissioners to keep up with the evolving nature of radiotherapy treatment and to ensure the evaluation and adoption of new techniques. The royal colleges and other professional bodies provide guidance to their members to assist the continuous update of clinical practice. Commissioners in turn need to ensure that they are aware of sources of updated guidance. The radiotherapy community in this country can be rightly proud of its ability to deliver clinical studies and explore the use of delivering radiotherapy in fewer fractions. Indeed, the role of the Royal College of Radiologists and the National Radiotherapy Implementation Group in producing such guidance is absolutely crucial.
	Let me come back to stereotactic body radiotherapy, which is an important example of specialist radiotherapy technique. It allows radiotherapy to be given to smaller target areas in higher doses with fewer treatments. Its greatest potential is in its possible use as an alternative to surgery and, because of its precision, to treat and potentially cure cancers that would otherwise be untreatable. However, as has been mentioned, it is regarded as a novel technique and it provides a very high dose of radiation per treatment. With conventional radiotherapy, a patient might receive their dose over 20 to 25 visits, but with SBRT that dose is delivered in five or six. More treatments need to be delivered within clinical studies so that clinicians can carefully follow up in both the short and long term to confirm the efficacy of the treatment and study any side effects. Side effects have been mentioned in the context of drugs, but we need to be conscious that there can also be side effects from radiotherapy and not be so anxious to expose people to risks if we are not confident. We should apply the standards of clinical trials to this area. It would be wrong for this Government to promote any form of treatment before the evidence has been collected. Evidence is about more than just making speeches in the House—it is also about looking at the clinical evidence.
	All new techniques, including advanced radiotherapy, need to be justified on the grounds of cost and clinical effectiveness. Last year, the National Radiotherapy Implementation Group, published guidance, which has been mentioned, on the use of SBRT, including a clinical evidence review, and concluded that there is a substantial
	evidence base for the clinical effectiveness of SBRT in early stage lung cancer for patients who are unsuitable for surgery.
	There are about 1,000 patients in the country who would benefit from that sort of procedure. There are ongoing clinical trials examining the use of the technique for other cancers, but they have yet to confirm its benefits for those cancers. For that reason, the national radiotherapy implementation group recommended that any patient receiving SBRT should receive it in a clinical study to enable the evidence to grow, and at specialised centres treating high volumes of patients with the necessary quality assurance safeguards in place. The implementation of the recommendations cannot be rushed, and the welfare of patients should be paramount in the introduction and use of novel techniques. Staff must therefore be thoroughly trained in this technique.
	My hon. Friend asked me to consider a number of issues. I will certainly undertake to examine the tariff programme to establish what more can be done to expedite it, but I should point out that it is no small task to introduce new tariffs in the NHS. In 2012-13 we are mandating the use of the necessary resource groups and currencies in regard to contracting for external beam radiotherapy, and that is an essential first step. I hope that when my hon. Friend has a chance to sit down with officials, they will be able to talk in more detail about
	the work that is being undertaken to make progress with the implementation of tariffs.
	It is possible that there will be a significant increase in demand for this treatment in the coming decades, but many tumours will continue to be treated better with conventional radiotherapy, and in particular with intensity-modulated and image-guided radiotherapy techniques.

Tessa Munt: May I clarify one point? I understand that the group recommended the setting of a tariff, but that the Department of Health will not set it until 2014. There is an acceptance of the technology, but there is also a delay of two years, and in that time people might die.

Paul Burstow: There are already local arrangements for the contracting of these services. Specialist centres can use the opportunity to include people in clinical trials, so that we can demonstrate that this is a worthwhile treatment for many cancers. At present, the evidence suggests that it is beneficial only in the case of inoperable lung cancers. I hope that, as we progress, we shall be able to demonstrate that this is not the only technology, and that CyberKnife is a brand, not—
	House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Deferred Divisions

Local Government

That the draft City of Manchester (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 315, Noes 201.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	That the draft City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 317, Noes 201.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	That the draft City of Sheffield (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 316, Noes 201.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	That the draft City of Coventry (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 314, Noes 201.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	That the draft City of Wakefield (Mayoral Referendum) Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 5 December, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 316, Noes 201.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Broadcasting

That the draft Local Digital Television Programme Services Order 2012, which was laid before this House on 15 December, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 326, Noes 198.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Electronic Communications

That the draft Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (Directions to OFCOM) Order, 2012, which was laid before this House on 15 December, be approved.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 325, Noes 198.

Question accordingly agreed to
	.